Energy Communities in the EU Task Force Energy Communities · Energy Communities in EU – December 2019 8 Executive Summary BRIDGE is a European Commission initiative which unites

Energy Communities in the EU

Task Force Energy Communities

December 2019

This report has been elaborated with the support of DOWEL MANAGEMENT within the INTENSYS4EU Coordination and Support Action. The INTENSYS4EU Project supports the BRIDGE activities and has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 731220.

Energy Communities in EU – December 2019 1

Document Information (Intensys4EU project)

Report number D3.12.d

Report name Energy Communities in the EU - Task Force Energy Communities

Reviewed by DOWEL Management

Date December 2019

Work Package and Task WP3, task 3.4

Lead Beneficiary for this

Deliverable

BRIDGE Task Force Energy Communities

Version Control

Version Date Author Description of Changes

V1.0 07/10/19 Nicolas Peraudeau General review of the document;

Adaptation to the BRIDGE template.

V1.1 06/11/19 EC/DG ENER General review of the document

V2.0 09/12/19 Achille Hannoset Introduction, country profiles and

recommendations added

V2.1 20/12/19 Nicolas Peraudeau Final review of the document

Authors of the present report

Name Organization E-mail Project

Achille Hannoset Th!nk-E [email protected] STORY

Leen Peeters Th!nk-E [email protected] STORY

Andreas Tuerk Joanneum

Research

[email protected] STORY

Contributors of the present report


Ludwig Karg Baum Group [email protected] SOGNO

Job Swens J-OB [email protected] ATELIER

Ruben Baetens 3E [email protected] INTERCONNECT

Takis Ktenidis University

of West-Attica

[email protected] TILOS

Dorian Frieden Joanneum

Research

[email protected] COMPILE


Further contributions through interviews and surveys


Dominique

Dhondt

University of Ghent [email protected] N/A

Xavier Hansen Luxembourg Institute

of Regulation

[email protected] N/A

Despoina

Boulorgiorgou

University of West-

Attica


Manca Konjar GEN-I [email protected] N/A

Dimitri De Weyer Walloon Government [email protected]

N/A

Sebastian Sladek EWS Schönau [email protected] N/A

Dirk Vansintjan Ecopower [email protected]

N/A

Ries Kamphof DG Climate and

Energy - Netherlands


João Peças

Lopes

Professor at the

Faculty of

Engineering of the

Porto University


Johan Kiewiet Amelander Energie

Coöperatie

[email protected]

N/A

Markos

Damasiotis

Center

for Renewable

Energy Sources


Ruth Buggie Sustainable Energy

Authority of Ireland


Romain Mauger University of

Groningen

[email protected] SMILE

Andrej Gubina University of

Ljubljana


Tomi Medved University of

Ljubljana


Ricardo Pastor R&D Nester [email protected] FLEXITRANSTORE

Anastasios

Tsitsanis

University of Athens [email protected] MERLON

Ricardo Prata EDP-Distribuição [email protected] InteGrid

Venizelos Efthymiou

University of Cyprus [email protected]

inteGRIDy

mailto:[email protected]



Lucia Mendes Diz Izuel

Veolia [email protected] REACT

Ricardo André EDP-Distribuição [email protected] INTEGRID

Johanna Höffken Eindhoven University [email protected] Muse Grids

Natalie Samovich TNT [email protected] SHAR-Q

Eva Winters TNO [email protected]

Arteconi Alessia Marche Polytechnic

University

[email protected] Muse Grids

Comodi Gabriele Marche Polytechnic

University

[email protected] Muse Grids

Leading team of the BRIDGE Task Force on Energy Communities, quality check of the

present report

Leaders of the Task Force

Name Organisation E-mail Project

Leen Peeters Th!nk-E [email protected] STORY

Ludwig Karg Baum Group [email protected] SOGNO

Guidance from European Commission

Name Organisation E-mail

Aleksandra Kronberga EC/DG.ENER [email protected]

Jan Steinkohl EC/DG.ENER (C1) [email protected]

Olav Berg EC/DG.ENER (B3) [email protected]

Teresa Aristegui EC/DG.ENER (B3) [email protected]

Marion Malafosse EC/DG.ENER (B3) [email protected]

Editor

Name Organisation E-mail

Nicolas Peraudeau DOWEL Management [email protected]


Table of content LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 8

1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT ....................................................... 9

2. COUNTRY PROFILES: MAIN FEATURES .............................................................................................. 11

2.1. GERMANY ............................................................................................................................................ 11 2.2. BELGIUM, WALLONIA ............................................................................................................................ 12 2.3. IRELAND .............................................................................................................................................. 13 2.4. FRANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. LUXEMBOURG ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.6. SLOVENIA ............................................................................................................................................ 18 2.7. GREECE .............................................................................................................................................. 19 2.8. PORTUGAL ........................................................................................................................................... 21 2.9. THE NETHERLANDS .............................................................................................................................. 23 2.10. CONCLUSIONS ON COUNTRY PROFILES .................................................................................................. 24

3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEMBER STATES TO IMPLEMENT ENERGY COMMUNITIES ............. 26

3.1. DRAW ON THE EXPERIENCES OF EXISTING ENERGY COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, OR CREATE A TEMPORARY SPACE

FOR THEM TO EMERGE IN .................................................................................................................................. 26 3.2. DARE TO BE AMBITIOUS TO MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF ENERGY COMMUNITIES, BUT ADEQUATELY

DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TYPES ....................................................................................................................... 26 3.3. SPECIFY PRINCIPLES OF ‘AUTONOMY’, ‘EFFECTIVE CONTROL’ IN ORDER TO AVOID ELITE-CAPTURE ............ 27 3.4. DEFINE THE CONCEPT OF ‘LOCALITY’ FOR COLLECTIVE SELF-CONSUMPTION AND ENERGY SHARING IN LINE

WITH GRID TOPOLOGY, BUT DO NOT EQUATE IT WITH THE ELEMENT OF ‘PROXIMITY’ FOR REC ............................... 28 3.5. PUT IN PLACE PARTICIPATION MECHANISMS FOR ENERGY POOR AND VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS .............. 29 3.6. CONSIDER THE VALUE THAT CEC AND REC CAN PROVIDE TO THE PUBLIC NETWORK ............................... 29 3.7. CONSIDER THE VALUE OF REC AND CEC TO THE COMMUNITY ................................................................ 30 3.8. PRO-ACTIVELY SUPPORT THE SET-UP OF REC AND CEC ....................................................................... 30 3.9. CONSIDER A SEPARATE AUCTION-BASED SUPPORT SCHEME FOR REC .................................................... 31 3.10. STREAMLINE, SIMPLIFY AND MAKE LESS BURDENSOME LICENSING AND NETWORK CONNECTION PROCEDURES

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………31 3.11. DO NOT REDUCE THE CONCEPT OF CEC AND REC TO MERE COLLECTIVE SELF-CONSUMPTION AND VICE

VERSA…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...32

ANNEX 1. THE EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................... 33

1.1. LEGAL CONCEPT .................................................................................................................................. 33 1.1.1. Energy sector ..............................................................................................................................35 1.1.2. Legal entity ..................................................................................................................................35 1.1.3. Actors involved............................................................................................................................36 1.1.4. Open and voluntary participation ................................................................................................36 1.1.5. Effective control ..........................................................................................................................37 1.1.6. Autonomy (specifically mentioned for RECs) .............................................................................37 1.1.7. Activities ......................................................................................................................................37 1.1.8. Purpose .......................................................................................................................................39

1.2. ASSOCIATED RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................... 41 1.3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITIZEN AND RENEWABLE ENERGY COMMUNITIES ....................................... 44

1.3.1. Legal concept..............................................................................................................................44 1.3.2. Rights, privileges and responsibilities .........................................................................................45

1.4. INSTITUTIONALIZATION APPROACHES ..................................................................................................... 46

ANNEX 2. OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL FRAMEWORKS FOR ENERGY COMMUNITIES IN THE EU.......... 48

2.1. MEMBER STATES WITH EXISTING OR EMERGING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ..................................................... 48 2.1.1. Belgium (Wallonia) ......................................................................................................................48 2.1.2. France .........................................................................................................................................54


2.1.3. Greece ........................................................................................................................................58 2.1.4. Germany .....................................................................................................................................67 2.1.5. Ireland .........................................................................................................................................70 2.1.6. Luxembourg ................................................................................................................................76 2.1.7. The Netherlands .........................................................................................................................81 2.1.8. Portugal .......................................................................................................................................88 2.1.9. Slovenia ......................................................................................................................................95

2.2. INTERMEDIATE STATEMENT ON NATIONAL SITUATIONS FOR ENERGY COMMUNITIES IN THE EU ................... 99 2.2.1. Overview of emerging and existing national legal concepts and associated rights, privileges and responsibilities ..........................................................................................................................................101

ANNEX 3. EXAMPLES OF ENERGY COMMUNITIES IN THE EU ............................................................... 109

3.1. CLASSIFICATION OF ENERGY COMMUNITIES AS RENEWABLE OR CITIZEN ENERGY COMMUNITIES ........... 109 3.1.1. Participation structure ...............................................................................................................109 3.1.2. Ownership structure and distribution of voting rights................................................................110 3.1.3. Related energy vectors .............................................................................................................112 3.1.4. Purpose .....................................................................................................................................114 3.1.5. Classification in accordance with EU regulation .......................................................................115

3.2. DETAILED CASE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 117 3.2.1. Amelander Energie Coöperatie U.A. (electricity production) ....................................................117 3.2.2. Ecopower CVBA (energy production, supply and energy saving services) .............................119 3.2.3. EWS Schönau eG (energy production, distribution, supply, electro-mobility services and energy saving services) ........................................................................................................................................121 3.2.4. Schoonschip Energie Coöperatie (electricity production, storage and sharing through a local micro-grid) .................................................................................................................................................124

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 126

LEGAL AND POLICY DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 126 ARTICLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 126 REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 127 BOOKS…. ...................................................................................................................................................... 127 ENERGY COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................................................. 127

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... 129

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ 130


List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CEC

REC

Citizen Energy Communities

Renewable Energy Communities

EU European Union

H2020 Horizon 2020

TSO Transmission System Operator

DSO Distribution System Operator

RED II Renewable Energy Directive

EMD Electricity Market Directive

WG

DG

Working Group

Directorate General

N.S.

N/A

Not specified

Not applicable

MS Member states


DISCLAIMER: Due to the pace at which new legal and policy frameworks for energy

communities are developing and changing, this report cannot guarantee to be up to date for

all discussed Member States, nor to cover all of the Member States with an existing or

emerging legal or policy developments in the relevant field.

Furthermore, this report does not draw any definite conclusions on compliance of existing

and emerging frameworks with the Clean Energy Package or applicable State aid rules.

The main goal of the report: to find pertinent elements in existing or planned frameworks and

practices which may be useful for guiding the work on implementation of new provisions on

energy communities stemming from REDII or EMD.

This report is preliminary and provides a basis for discussion and further analysis. The Energy

Community Taskforce appreciates additional input and feedback. Contact: achille@think-

e.be.


Executive Summary

BRIDGE is a European Commission initiative which unites Horizon 2020 Smart Grid and Energy Storage Projects to create a structured view of cross-cutting issues which are encountered in the demonstration projects and may constitute an obstacle to innovation.

The BRIDGE process fosters continuous knowledge sharing amongst projects thus allowing them to deliver conclusions and recommendations about the future exploitation of the project results, with a single voice, through four different Working Groups representing the main areas of interest: Business Models, Consumer Engagement, Data Management and Regulations.

As a result of the last General Assembly (GA) of the BRIDGE initiative, a number of task forces (TF) were created to address topics that could be horizontal to more than one of the above-mentioned working groups. In this way, a specific TF was launched to investigate on the local energy communities in the European Union (EU).

The main objectives of this TF and the present report were (i) to provide an overview of the existing

legal developments regarding energy communities in the EU and (ii) to build recommendations for the

European Commission (EC) based on the inputs received from the BRIDGE survey and interviews

conducted with actors of the EU countries covered in the report (Germany, the Netherlands, France,

Belgium (Wallonia), Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Ireland).

Among others, the overview highlighted that Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland have experienced

legal frameworks which focus on one particular activity, such as energy production or providing energy

efficiency services. Slovenia, Luxembourg, France and Belgium (Wallonia) have recently introduced

a legal framework for ‘Renewable Energy communities’ in the context of collective self-consumption

or energy sharing. Portugal is the first MS to fully implement the RED II, while Greece has set out a

very ambitious and encompassing legal framework for energy communities, consistent out of a variety

of financial incentives and support measures.

As a results of these findings, leaders of the BRIDGE TF could work on the elaboration of eleven

concrete and various recommendations, such as highlighting the importance to draw on existing

experiences of Energy Communities between countries, specifying the principles of ‘autonomy’ and

‘effective control’ as soon as possible in the regulations, clearly defining the concept of ‘locality’ in the

case of collective self-consumption and energy sharing, etc.

Last but not least, three exhaustive annexes allow readers to learn further details on the European

framework of the energy communities (legal entities, actors involved, activities and purposes, etc),

the national situations of these energy communities in nine EU countries. Finally, the last annex

provides concrete examples of operational energy communities.


1. Introduction: context and objectives of the report On 30 November 2016, the European Commission introduced the ‘Clean Energy for all Europeans

Package’ (CEP). This legislative package embodies eight proposals1 to facilitate a transition to a

‘clean-energy economy’ and to reshape the electricity market of the European Union in order to meet

the responsibilities of the European Union (EU) in the framework of the Paris Agreement.

One of the fundamental goals of the Clean Energy Package is placing the consumer at the heart of

the energy transition. In this trend, the recast renewable energy directive (RED II) and the recast

electricity market directive (EMD) introduce a framework for “citizen energy communities” (CEC) and

“renewable energy communities” (REC). These communities should help mobilize private financial

means, lower public resistance against the energy transition and enhance the flexibility in the market.

The provisions for energy communities in the Clean Energy Package leave, however, much room for

interpretation and EU member states (MS) will have to implement the RED II and EMD within 18

months after entering into force. The question thus rises how these abstract provisions can be

transposed into national law.

This report aims to contribute to solving these questions by providing an overview of existing legal

developments regarding energy communities in the EU. As it stands, there are existing legal

frameworks for energy communities in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Belgium (Wallonia),

Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Ireland. However, most of these countries do not yet

fully comply with the CEP provisions. Overall, it can be said that legislation in the field of energy

communities is in its infancy and is undergoing continuous change.

The report explores pathways to implement the European frameworks for CEC and REC by looking

at existing and emerging legal and policy developments regarding energy communities at the national

level, as well as existing practices and experiences at the local level. It also provides an analysis of

the relationship of these developments and cases to the framework for REC and CEC in RED II and

EMD. The analysis is based on evidence from literature and legal document review, interviews with

representatives of different MS, the BRIDGE Energy Community Taskforce Questionnaire and 18

case-studies of energy communities, of which 4 very in-depth case-analysis as described in the

Annexes.

After a global overview of the legal and policy developments in the above-mentioned MS, some

recommendations were built for Member States and European Commission to foster the

implementation of Energy Communities.

Annex 1 discusses the European framework for Renewable and Citizen Energy Communities. Annex

2 provides a detailed overview and analysis of what is happening in each of the identified EU MS in

terms of legal and policy developments. Finally, Annex 3 provides an overview and analysis of 18

different energy communities, four of which are subject to a more detailed analysis, focusing on

governance structure, activities, key actions drivers and institutional barriers.

1 For an oversight of the different proposals see Commission, ‘Clean Energy for All Europeans’ (Communication) <https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-all-europeans> (accessed 21 March 2018).

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-all-europeans


The report is part of the wider purpose of the BRIDGE Energy Community Taskforce’s effort to share

insights across MS, increasing thereby the relevance of related H2020 project in being role models

for national regulation while formulating policy recommendations on the implementation of enabling

frameworks for all types of energy communities, focusing on those initiatives covered by the provisions

in the Clean Energy for All Europeans Package. More information on the work of the Taskforce can

be found on the EXPERA platform, to which any expert on energy communities is welcome to

contribute, and which consists out of 10 salient questions in relation to Energy Communities, to be

addressed. This report situates itself within question 10: “what is the existing national situation of

Energy Communities in the context of the Clean Energy Package?”, but touches also on other

Taskforce questions.

Figure 1: Overview of the EU countries with legislative developments

https://expera.smartgridsplus.eu/Living%20Documents/Local%20Energy%20Communities.aspx


2. Country profiles: main features

2.1. Germany

The German Renewable Energy Act (EEG) sets out a framework for ‘Citizens’ Energy Companies’.

The framework came into force on 1st January 2017 without the RED II and EMD in mind.

A Citizens’ Energy Company can operate on the wind-based electricity market.

The EEG regulates the activity of production and provides two privileges in this regard: a temporary

financial security deposit reduction and a clearing price in the national wind subsidy scheme. These

privileges can be seen as an implementation of the right on a support scheme that takes into account

the specificities of Renewable energy Communities in article 22 (7) RED II.

The governance principles of ‘autonomy’ and ‘effective control’ are given shape by reserving 51% of

the voting rights to citizens, introducing cap of 10% on the amount of voting rights one actor can hold,

and requiring minimum amount of members.

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.4 of the Annex 2 on Germany.

Citizens' Energy Company

Focus on production

Electricity sector (wind-based)

Customized support scheme

Concept is open to local entities (51% citizens)


2.2. Belgium, Wallonia

On the 30th of April 2019, the Walloon government officially published a Decree introducing the

concept of ‘Renewable Energy Communities’. The Decree was already in its final review stage when

RED II was officially adopted. Whilst some modifications were still made in order to be compliant,

most of the framework was drafted without the intention of being a full implementation of RED II.

According to Walloon Decree, Renewable Energy Communities can produce, store, sell and share

electricity generated from renewable energy or high-quality cogeneration plants.

The Decree views the concept Renewable Energy Communities primarily as a form of collective self-

consumption which can be formed by consumers located in the ‘local perimeter’, i.e. as an area where

de connection points for injection and take-off are located downstream of one or more public

medium/low-voltage transformer stations. Concordantly several rights and responsibilities are

implemented to facilitate this activity, such as the possibility of local grid tariffs in line with article 22.4

(d) RED II and article 16.3 (d) juncto article 15.2 (e) EMD, 2 and the right to cooperation with the DSO

in order to transfers within the community in the sense of art. 16.1 (d) EMD and 22.4 (c) RED II.

The legal concept is almost identical to that of REC in RED II, with the exception of a stricter

geographical limitation, as all of the participants (not only those in effective control) need to be located

in the ‘local perimeter’ for the purpose of collective self-consumption. The governance principles of

‘effective control’ and ‘autonomy’ are furthermore reiterated and left to the discretion of Renewable

Energy Communities to determine in their statutes. However, the Government may decide to set

minimum rules, which may vary in accordance with the type and quality of participants, the legal form

assumed by the community, the technical limitations of the network, and the local perimeter

concerned.

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.1 of the Annex 2 on Belgium.

2 I.e. the right to fair, cost-reflective, transparent and non-discriminatory network charges.

Renewable energy community

Focus on collective self-consumption

Electricity sector (renewable energy and cogeneration based)

Considering local grid tariffs

Concept is open to local entities (similar to REC in RED II)


2.3. Ireland

The Sustainable Energy Community (SEC) Programme is a product of Ireland’s White Paper

“Transition to a Low Carbon Energy Future 2015-2030” and was established in 2015 by the

Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) to support community energy initiatives. The policy-

framework emerged outside of the context of the CEP.

A Sustainable Energy Community is defined in the SEC Programme as a partnership between public,

private and community sectors which aim to be energy-efficient first, and use renewable energy and

smart energy solutions second. Any actor can participate in a sustainable energy community,

irrespective of their geographical location within the country, which makes the concept considerably

broader than both REC and CEC in RED II and EMD.

The Sustainable Energy Communities Programme consists out of 3 steps: learn, plan and do. In the

first step, a community can become a member of the nation-wide SEC Network, which creates a

space for communities to engage and learn from project site visits, seminars, events, and case-studies

in order to help them identify and develop energy projects. In the second step, the community can

enter into a three-year partnership with the SEAI and start designing an Energy Master Plan. During

this three year period the community receives active support and mentoring from SEAI in order to

identify energy saving opportunities and other energy-related activities. In the last step, the community

can also apply for dedicated funding from the SEAI to help realize the Energy Master Plan.64 The

program can be seen as a generous implementation of the indirect right to tools to facilitate access to

information and finance in article 22.4 (g) RED II.

The Irish Government has recently also published a High Level Design Paper,3 which sets out several

policies and support measures for a new renewable electricity support scheme (RESS) that

encourages participation of communities and community-ownership. More precisely, the paper

3 https://www.dccae.gov.ie/documents/RESS%20Design%20Paper.pdf.

Sustainable energy community

Focus on energy efficiency

Tools to facilitate access to information and finance

Upcoming customized support scheme

Concept is open to any entity, irrespective of the

geographical location

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/documents/RESS%20Design%20Paper.pdf


proposes early on financial support for feasibility and development studies and capacity building, a

mandatory community benefit fund and register, mandatory investment opportunities for communities

living in proximity of a RES project, separate auctions for communities that meet community-led

criteria, provision of independent technical, legal, project and financial advice, and support to guide

community-led projects through the grid connection process. Although these policies and support

measures are non-binding and still need to be incorporated in legislation, they can be seen as an

important first step to implementing the right of to a support scheme that accounts for the specificities

of Renewable Energy Communities in article 22.7 RED II.

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.5 of the Annex 2 on Ireland.


2.4. France

The French Law on Energy and Climate of 8th November 2019 introduces the concept of ‘Renewable Energy Communities’. The Law can be seen as an implementation of RED II.

Renewable Energy Communities, according to French law, are allowed to produce, store, sell and

share renewable energy. They can operate in both the heat and electricity sector to the extent that

they are renewable energy based.

The national concept of Renewable Energy Communities is identical to the definition for Renewable

Energy Communities in article 2 (16) RED II.

The primary focus of the Law is on collective self-consumption. Concordantly, the rights, privileges

and responsibilities are focussed on enabling and supporting collective self-consumption. The

framework most notably implements the right to fair, cost-reflective, transparent and non-

discriminatory network charges in article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.3 (d) juncto article 15.2 (e)

EMD by introducing a right to a specific distribution network tariff that reflect the actual cost borne by

the network operators, the details of which will need to be determined by the Energy Regulatory

Commission. In addition, the DSO has the responsibility to cooperate with the Renewable Energy

Community to facilitate the transfer of energy within the community4 in the sense of article art. 16.1

(d) EMD and 22.4 (c) RED II.

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.2 of the Annex 2 on France

4 315-6.


Focus on collective self-consumption

Electricity sector (renewable energy based)

Considering local grid tariffs

Concept is open to local entities (similar to

REC in RED II)


2.5. Luxembourg

Luxembourg has a proposal ready in the Parliament that will introduce the concept of ‘Renewable

Energy Communities’.70 The draft Law aims to partly transpose the RED II.

Renewable Energy Communities, in the sense of the Luxembourgian draft Law, are allowed to

produce, store, sell and share electricity generated from renewable energy or high efficiency

cogeneration facilities.

The draft Law focuses primarily on the activity of energy sharing within the community. The

participants need to be located in the same locality, i.e. downstream of the high and/or medium voltage

electricity transformer station connected to the low-voltage station operated by the DSO concerned.

A legal entity is required in order to interact with the grid operator to facilitate sharing of electricity

amongst the members of the CER.

The associated rights, privileges and responsibilities are concordantly aimed at regulating the

interactive relationship between the DSO and Renewable Energy Communities to facilitate transfers

within the community in the sense of 22.4 (c) RED II. The Renewable Energy Community can either

decide to share in accordance with their own distribution model, or based on a static and simple

distribution model that will need to be determined by the regulator in close cooperation with the DSOs.

In case a Renewable Energy Community decides to make its own allocation of the produced quantities

to its members, the community will need to send load curves to the DSO within some format and

some timeframe that is yet to be defined. The DSO will then send the virtual grid consumption load

curves to the supplier of the different participants. The community is authorized to delegate the

organization of the allocation of electrical energy to a service provider. The service provider must be

able to follow the technical and organizational terms and conditions of the distribution model and

cannot be a member of the community. The quantities of electrical energy taken from the network and

the total quantities of electrical energy consumed and produced individually by members of the

community need to be communicated at least every month.


Focus on energy sharing

Electricity sector (renewable energy and cogeneration

based)

Detailed description of cooperation with DSO to facilitate sharing

Concept is open to local entities (slightly more open than REC

in RED II)


The draft Law furthermore provides that energy sharing within a community needs to be done without

prejudice to the network access charges, network usage charges and other charges, levies and taxes

applicable to each participating member or shareholder. Renewable Energy Communities are allowed

to sell their excess production of renewable electricity through purchase agreements in accordance

with article 22.2 (a) RED II, provided they take on balancing responsibilities, as prescribed in article

16.3 (c) EMD.

The national legal concept of Renewable Energy Communities is very similar to the concept of REC

in RED II, although the concept is characterized by a more open membership, as also SMEs whose

participation constitutes their primary economic activity are allowed to participate. In addition, the

geographical limitation is more strict, since all of the participants (not only those in effective control)

need to be located in the same ‘locality’ for the purpose of collective self-consumption.

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.6 of the Annex 2 on Luxembourg.


2.6. Slovenia

Slovenia has adopted a new By-Law on the Self-supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources

which introduces the concept of ‘Renewable Energy Source Communities’. The By-Law entered into

force on the 1st of May 2019 and can be seen as a first step towards later implementation of the EU

regulation.

Renewable Energy Source Community, according to Slovenian By-Law, is allowed to operate on the

electricity market to the extent that it is entirely renewable energy based.

The By-Law views Renewable Energy Communities as jointly acting final consumers behind the same

LV transformer station that are engaged in collective self-consumption. A legal entity is not required,

but is allowed to be established.

In terms of participation criteria, the legal concept of Renewable Energy Source Communities is more

broadly defined than a CEC and REC, since any entity is allowed to participate. However, the

geographical limitation will be more strict than for a REC, as all of the participants (not only those in

effective control) need to be located behind the same transformer station for the purpose of collective

self-consumption.

The production unit, in contrast to article 22 (2) (b) RED II and article 16.3 (e) EMD, does not have to

be owned by the community members or shareholders, which implies that a third party power plant

owner can also participate in the Renewable Energy Source Community. However, this actor will not

be allowed to have effective control over the community.

The owner of the production unit cannot acquire the status of producer and sell the generated

electricity to the market in case of excess electricity. The excess electricity goes to the external

supplier and is directly fed into the public grid. No balancing requirement has been imposed on

production units for self-consumption, this is transferred to the supplier.

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.9 of the Annex 2 on Slovenia.

Renewable energy source community

Linked to collective self-consumption


Concept is open to any local entity


Concept is open to any entity (50% plus one of the members need

to be located in the District of the EC's HQ)

2.7. Greece

The Greek Law on ‘Energy Communities’ was adopted in January 2018 and introduces a new type of

cooperative within the wider framework of Social and Solidarity Economy. The Law was adopted

without the RED II and EMD in mind, but nonetheless gives shape to many of the abstract governance

dimensions and rights, privileges and responsibilities in these directives.

An Energy Community, according to Greek law, can exercise a variety of activities, including the ones

prescribed for REC and CEC, but also additional ones, such as energy innovation, energy poverty

reduction and promoting energy sustainability. An Energy Community can operate on both the heating

and electricity market to the extent that it is based on renewable energy or high-quality cogeneration.

The Greek concept of Energy Communities is equated with the cooperative form, which can either be

for-profit or not-for-profit. The concept is furthermore open to any entity, except for large energy

companies. Depending on the actors involved, different membership quota shall apply. The element

of ‘proximity’ is transposed through the requirement that 50% plus one of the members need to be

located in the same District as the headquarters of an Energy Community. The Law also implements

the governance principles of ‘effective control’ and ‘autonomy’ by imposing a cap on the amount of

shares an entity can hold, as well as the democratic principle of one member one vote. In addition,

the law explicitly stimulates the involvement of municipalities and vulnerable households, which is in

line with article 22.4 (h) RED II on the positive obligation to stimulate the involvement of public

authorities, and article 22.4 (f) on the participation of vulnerable households.

Energy community

Focus on activities similar to CEC in EMD , including distribution, as

well as energy poverty reduction and promotion of energy

sustainability

Heat, gas and electricity sector (renewable energy and high quality

cogeneration based)

Customized support scheme

Different production and supply license procedures


The Law furthermore implements many of the abstract rights and privileges in the RED II and EMD.

In particular, the right to fair, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent procedures in article

22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.1 (e) EMD by easing certain requirements related to licensing and

administration fees, as well as priority treatment in production licensing and grid connection

procedures. In addition, the right to a customized support scheme in article 22.7 RED II is given shape

by exempting energy communities with installed capacity of up to 18 MW from auctions (i.e. access

to subsidies is easier).

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.3 of the Annex 2 on Greece.


2.8. Portugal

Portugal adopted a Decree-Law on October 25th 2019 that introduces the concept of collective self-

consumption and ‘Renewable Energy Communities’. The Decree-Law will enter into force on January

1st, 2020 for self-consumption and Renewable Energy Communities with intelligent counting system

and installed at the same voltage level, and in 2021 for other self-consumption activities. The Law-

Decree can be seen as a direct implementation of the framework for REC in RED II.

A Renewable Energy Community is allowed to produce, consume, share, store and sell electricity

generated from renewable energy.

The definition of the concept reiterates the governance principles and requirements attached to the

concept of REC in the RED II, but leaves space for all kinds of entities to participate, provided that

they are located in close proximity of the energy projects or develop activities related to the respective

energy projects which are owned and developed by the renewable energy community.

Furthermore, the Decree-Law copies most of the provisions in article 22 RED II and delegates further

implementation responsibilities to Government bodies and agencies, such as the national

Government, the Directorate General for Energy and Geology (DGEG) and the Energy Sector

Regulatory Authority (ESRA).

The DGEG will be in charge of implementing most of the rights and privileges in article 22.4 RED II.

In addition, it will be in charge of accepting on a case-by-case basis new Renewable Energy

Community projects until December 2020, as well as assessing the obstacles for and potential of

Renewable Energy Communities within two years after the entry into force of this Decree-Law and

every three years thereafter. This assessment will then form the basis for a framework that promotes

and facilitates the development of Renewable Energy Communities.


The National Regulatory Authority is given the responsibility to assess the feasibility of local grid

tariffs5 in case Renewable Energy Communities make use of the local network to transfer electricity

for self-consumption purposes,6 which is a direct implementation of the right to fair, cost-reflective,

transparent and non-discriminatory network charges in article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.3 (d)

juncto article 15.2 (e) EMD.

The government official responsible for energy is in charge of the design of a support scheme that

takes into account the specificities of Renewable Energy Communities in the sense of article 22.7

RED II. In this regard, there is a possibility for the Government official to exempt Renewable Energy

Communities from charges related to costs of energy policy, sustainability and economic interest,

provided that they do not disproportionately socialize costs to other customers. The Decree-Law also

states that the sharing of the produced electricity and the related ‘coefficient’ as well as the linking to

the DSO are to be defined.

Besides these delegated implementation responsibilities, the Decree-Law also formulates several

direct rights and responsibilities; a Renewable Energy Community will for example be responsible for

imbalances it causes to the national electricity system. In addition, several exemptions from

production registration and licensing procedures are given to the extent that the production units for

self-consumption do not exceed an installed capacity of 1 MW. The latter can be seen as a direct

implementation of the right to fair, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent procedures in

article 22.4 (d) RED II.

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.8 of the Annex 2 on Portugal.

5 I.e. network charges deducted by charges related to the use of the transmission network. 6 Art. 18.


Concept is open to local entities (80% private

entities)

2.9. The Netherlands

The Dutch regulatory sandbox for Energy Cooperatives and Associations was created in 2015 without

the RED II and EMD in mind.

The legal conceptualization is limited to cooperatives and associations who can only operate on the

electricity sector and need to be renewable energy based. Participation to the cooperative or

association is limited, as 80% of the participants need to be private end-consumers. The autonomy

of the initiatives are furthermore guaranteed through an explicit prohibition for DSOs, TSOs or legal

persons that are (in)directly producer or supplier of electricity to have any say in the management of

the association or cooperative. In addition, the principle of effective control is given shape through the

obligation of control by the general assembly of members over the set-up, progress or cost distribution

of the project.

The experimental regime focuses primarily on sustainable energy generation and energy efficient grid

use, which implies that energy associations or cooperatives can be allowed to operate their own

private community network. Under the experimental regime, the Minister can furthermore grant an

exemption from rules pertaining to tasks and responsibilities of the network operator, tariff structures

and conditions, conditions for data-processing, transparency and solvency, measurement device

requirements, invoicing and information processing. The possible exemption from normal network-

related charges can be seen as an implementation of the right to (fair), cost-reflective, transparent

and non-discriminatory network charges article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.1 (e) EMD. In addition,

there is an automatic exemption from supply license requirements for supply to small end consumer

that applies to approved projects. The latter can be considered an implementation of the right to non-

discriminatory, fair, proportionate and transparent procedures formulated in article 22.4 (d) RED II

and article 16.1 (e) EMD.

From 2015 up to and including 2018, exemptions were granted to 20 exemption holders under the

Electricity Act Experiments. Applications for the experimental regime are now closed, and the rules in

Energy associations or cooperatives

Focus on sustainable energy generation and energy

efficient grid use


Local grid tariffs

Exemption from supply license requirement for supply to small

consumers


the Crown Decree are up for revision. The old scheme will most probably be expanded with more

goals and possible partnerships, which will allow for more space for local experiments.

See more information in the detailed chapter 2.1.7 of the Annex 2 on the Netherlands.

2.10. Conclusions on country profiles

This report provided an overview of existing and emerging legal and policy developments with regard

to energy communities in the EU.

Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland have relatively ‘older’ and more experienced legal frameworks

which focus on one particular activity, such as energy production or providing energy efficiency

services. Slovenia, Luxembourg, France and Belgium (Wallonia) have more recently introduced a

legal framework for ‘Renewable Energy communities’ in the context of collective self-consumption or

energy sharing. Portugal is the first MS to fully implement the RED II. Finally, Greece has set out a



Despite these differences, each of the legal and policy frameworks have presented a variety of ways

to interpret and implement the rights, privileges and responsibilities in article 16 EMD and article 22

RED II. In particular, the following rights were given further shape:

• the right to a customized support scheme in article 22.7 RED II in Germany (temporarily

reduced financial security deposit), Greece (exemption from bidding procedures for projects

up to 18 MW is granted) and Ireland (separate auction procedure is being considered for

community-led projects);

• the indirect right to tools to facilitate access to information and financing in article 22.4 (g)

RED II in Ireland (Sustainable Energy Communities Programme);

• the right to right to fair, cost-reflective, transparent and non-discriminatory network charges in

article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.3 (d) juncto article 15.2 (e) EMD by considering local grid

tariff in Belgium (Wallonia), France, Portugal, and the Netherlands;

• the right to cooperation with the DSO in order to transfers within the community in the sense

of art. 16.1 (d) EMD and 22.4 (c) RED II in Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Belgium (Wallonia);

• the right to sell its excess production of renewable electricity through purchase agreements

in accordance with article 22.2 (a) RED II in Luxembourg, France and Portugal;

• the right to fair, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent procedures in article 22.4

(d) RED II and article 16.1 (e) EMD in Greece and Portugal.

An overview of the implementation of these different rights, privileges and responsibilities in the

selected MS can be found in the Annex 2, as well as a more in-depth analysis of the national

frameworks and their relation to the Clean Energy Package.

In addition, different implementation approaches to the principles of ‘proximity’, ‘effective control’,

‘autonomy’ and purpose in article 2 (11) EMD and REC in article 2 (16) RED could be observed in

Germany, Greece, Belgium (Wallonia) and the Netherlands. An overview of implementation

approaches to these different elements can also be found in Annex 2.


Annex 3 gives an overview and analysis of 18 different energy communities in and outside these MS,

four of which are subject to a more detailed analysis, focusing in particular on governance structure,

activities, key actions drivers and institutional barriers.


3. Recommendations for Member States to implement Energy Communities

Through a combination of top-down (cf. Annex 1 and 2) and bottom-up (cf. Annex 3) analysis, the

Energy Community Taskforce arrived at the following key recommendations to guide EU MS in their

quest to implement the European framework for CEC and REC.

3.1. Draw on the experiences of existing energy community initiatives, or create a temporary space for them to emerge in

Some countries have little or no practical experience with initiatives comparable to REC and CEC,

such as Slovenia, Luxembourg and Portugal.

If there are no existing practices, an approach similar to the one taken in Portugal or Wallonia is

recommended; a gradual and layered transposition of the directives, which creates a legal space for

test-cases of CEC and REC to emerge and experiment for a certain period of time, limited to the

transposition deadline of both Directives into national law. Subsequently, these initiatives can be

monitored by a designated governmental body in order to learn about key action drivers, barriers and

organizational models that can inform the further implementation of the abstract rights, responsibilities

and privileges in article 16 EMD and article 22 RED II, as well as governance dimensions of ‘effective

control’ and ‘autonomy’ in article 2 (11) EMD and article 2 (16) RED II in secondary regulation,

gradually and in line with these practices.

Some countries already have experience with energy communities or collective self-consumption

such as the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium and France that can be expanded in order to

meet criteria of REC. These MS can already start the assessment process of legal and administrative

barriers, moving the existing approaches towards the definition of REC, and look at the most common

legal organizational forms used for REC and CEC. The governance structure of the most common

legal organizational forms can then further inform principles of ‘proximity’, ‘autonomy’, ‘effective

control’ and ‘purpose’.

MS should, however, be careful with limiting the legal framework to one specific legal organizational

form in order to not impede new types of organizations to emerge, as was recently the case with the

Società Civil in Italy. The appropriate legal organizational form for REC and CEC will often depend on

many contextual factors, including the configuration of actors, the geographical location and the

motivations of the participants. Therefore it is important to allow for experimentation with new market

models, partnerships and organizational models.

3.2. Dare to be ambitious to maximize the potential of energy communities, but adequately differentiate between types

Energy community initiatives cover many loads, depending amongst others on the organizational

model, ownership structure and participation criteria. Consequently, the breakdown into CEC on the

one hand and REC on the other captures only some types of energy communities.


MS should therefore consider going beyond the conceptualizations for REC and CEC, and

institutionalize also other types of energy communities, provided that the associated legal framework

is customized to the size, ownership structure and number of projects that characterize these other

types of energy community initiatives.

Different institutionalization models exist for going beyond the Clean Energy Package:

• In the liberal model, MS can try to experiment with other forms of energy communities. The

governance criteria will be broader and thus allow more forms of energy communities to be

included. Concordantly, the associated rights and privileges will be more restricted.

• In the national golden standard model, more strict governance criteria will apply, allowing for

only few community energy projects to qualify for additional benefits going beyond the ones

required by EU. Accordantly, the associated rights, privileges and responsibilities will be more

extensive. In the regulatory sandbox model, only few projects will be allowed to enjoy the

exemptions under the experimental legislation, allowing for few community energy projects to

be included. The associated rights, privileges and responsibilities will often, but not

necessarily, be more extensive.

• In the all-inclusive model a Member State can institutionalize tailor-made frameworks for

different types of energy communities, depending on their specific and differentiated needs

and characteristics. Here, the frameworks for REC and CEC will only be a piece of the puzzle.

3.3. Specify principles of ‘autonomy’, ‘effective control’ in order to avoid elite-capture

The definitions for REC and CEC contain abstract governance principles and criteria such as ‘effective

control’, and for REC ‘autonomy’ in order to ensure their resilience to outside interference, elite-

capture by traditional energy companies, and profit-over-value mentality.

These practices are often a consequence of an unlevel playing field between actors within a

community or between the community and external actors caused by an imbalance in expertise and

financial resources. The imbalance of financial means can be remedied by principles such as ‘one

member one vote’ and shareholding caps. The unlevel playing field in terms of expertise can be

remedied through active support in the form of training sessions, seminars, events and case-studies

organized by government agencies, as is done in Ireland.

Mechanisms of ‘effective control’ can be identified in Germany, Greece and the Netherlands. In

Greece, effective control by the community is enforced through participation quota (dependent on

which type of actors participate), the principle of 1 member 1 vote, as well as the shareholding caps

of 20% for private entities and natural persons, and differentiated shareholding caps for municipalities.

In Germany, there is a cap of 10% on the amount of voting rights each actor can hold. Finally, in the

Netherlands, effective control over certain decisions are guaranteed through the requirement that the

general assembly within an association or cooperative needs to have control over the set-up, progress

and/or cost-distribution.


Mechanisms of ‘autonomy’ can be identified in the Netherlands, Germany and Greece. In Greece,

this is done through the obligation for consent of the Board of Directors before a transfer of a

cooperative share to a member of a third party can occur, as well as the minimum participation quota.

In the Netherlands, this is ensured through the prohibition of DSOs, TSOs or legal persons that

(in)directly are producer or supplier of electricity to have any say in the management of the community.

In Germany, 51% of the voting rights are reserved to citizens in order to guarantee citizen control over

the citizens’ energy company.

Despite these governance mechanisms, practices in the Germany and Greece have shown

incidences of ‘proxy-communities’, i.e. traditional energy companies that create a small energy

communities through third persons or organizations which they control. Imposing a minimum

participation quota, or requiring a certain degree of independence could help prevent such practices.

In any case, MS will do well in allowing some room for REC and CEC to interpret and define these

principles themselves in their statutes (e.g. in the case of EWS Schönau, the community introduced

a limit of 10 shares per member in order to avoid people joining just to make a profit), whilst reserving

the power for government agencies to further specify minimum rules in secondary regulation, as is

provided for in Belgium (Wallonia). Such rules can then best be made dependent of the local

perimeter, as well as the quality of the participants and the legal form assumed by the community, as

is done in Greece.

3.4. Define the concept of ‘locality’ for collective self-consumption and energy sharing in line with grid topology, but do not equate it with the element of ‘proximity’ for REC

In Luxembourg, Belgium (Wallonia), Slovenia and the Netherlands, the principle of ‘locality’ for the

activity of collective self-consumption is defined in accordance with grid topology.

Luxembourg has for example defined the notion as an area downstream of the high and/or medium

voltage electricity transformer station connected to the low-voltage station operated by the relevant

DSO in order to conform with the reality that customers switch around the network from time to time

and that most low voltage feeders can be connected to two different medium voltage stations.

MS should, however, be mindful not to confuse the principle of ‘locality’ for collective self-consumption

with the principle of ‘proximity’ in the RED II for REC. For collective self-consumption or energy sharing

all of the participants will most likely have to be located in proximity of each other, whilst for REC only

those in effective control need to be located in proximity of the projects owned and developed by the

community.

In Greece, the element of ‘proximity’ is transposed through the requirement that 50% plus one of the

members need to be located in the same District as the headquarters of the energy community. Such

an interpretation provides flexibility for both the location of the production units and the members of

the community.


3.5. Put in place participation mechanisms for energy poor and vulnerable households

MS are advised to install additional mechanisms to ensure that energy poor and vulnerable

households share in the benefits produced by REC and CEC.

In Greece, several provisions are explicitly dedicated to energy poor and vulnerable households:

• 2% of the profits need to be distributed to them;

• they can be supplied with energy from the energy community, without having to be a member

or shareholder;

• virtual net-metering can be applied to cover their energy needs within the Region where the

community’s headquarters are located.

MS are especially encouraged to ensure the possibility for energy poor and vulnerable households to

participate in schemes that remunerate flexibility services provided by REC and CEC to the grid.

3.6. Consider the value that CEC and REC can provide to the public network

With subsidies for renewable energy in decline, REC are often struggling to build a business case.

Local grid tariffs based on the actual network cost of the community for the public grid provides a

possible avenue to create an extra sources of revenue for REC.

Several countries are thinking of introducing a locally differentiated grid tariffs, including Portugal,

Austria, France and Belgium (Wallonia). Local grid tariffs can support the establishment of REC and

CEC and aim to reflect the impact of energy communities on the grid system, taking into account the

diverted investment costs due to limited use of the transmission grid, and reduced transmission and

distribution losses.

The reasoning behind this approach is that REC and CEC that only use the distribution network should

not pay transmission network-related charges which are related to the maintenance, operation and

expansion of the transmission network. In reality, REC and CEC will, however, often remain

dependable to some extent on the central transmission network due to the intermittent nature of

renewables. Taking into account this reality, Portugal has proposed to introduce specific network

charges, i.e. normal network charges deducted by charges related to the use of the transmission

network when there is no injection of energy from the transmission network; or part of the charges

related to the use of the transmission network when there is inversion of energy flow between the

distribution and transmission network.

Alternatively, MS can opt for the ex-post renumeration model of (part of) the grid tariff. This model will

allow for remuneration in case of proven reduction of diverted investment costs or other benefits to

the system. This model has been tested in the case of Schoonschip in the regulatory sandbox in the

Netherlands, where it was proven that the local energy sharing and demand side management

enabled the DSO to connect this new neighbourhood with one connection with approximately half the

capacity normally used for a neighbourhood of this size. This allowed the DSO to avoid local grid


reinforcement to a high voltage system, which would have resulted in an increase in socialized

network connection costs.

In Austria also a rolling cost model is discussed that not only differentiates between high and low tariff

times but also between base and peaktimes.

In any case, MS are advised to not disproportionately socialize costs to other customers that cannot

or do not participate in a REC or CEC.

3.7. Consider the value of REC and CEC to the community

Social cohesion, trust, justice and democracy are potential values produced by REC and CEC which

can justify subsidies in the form of dedicated support mechanisms or local grid tariffs linked with lower

contributions to taxes and surcharges.

An example of a dedicated support mechanism can be observed in Greece, where an exemption from

bidding procedures for projects up to 18 MW is granted to Energy Communities. In addition, a

compensation of 10% from the weighted average price obtained 3 years before the last bidding

procedure for wind farms < 6 MW and for PV installations < 1 MW, based on Ministerial Decision.

An example of lower contributions to taxes and surcharges in local tariffs can be observed in Portugal,

where the charges related to costs of energy policy, sustainability and economic interest can be

partially or totally deducted by means of the Government member responsible for energy.

When designing such schemes, it is important for MS to balance the benefits of REC and CEC to the

electricity system with the financial implications for other customers.

3.8. Pro-actively support the set-up of REC and CEC

Set up a support program that helps REC (and CEC) to learn from other community energy projects

and provide independent technical, legal, project and financial advice and support.

A good example in this regard can be observed in Ireland, where the Sustainable Energy Authority of

Ireland has established the “Sustainable Energy Communities Programme”. The program consists

out of 3 steps: learn, plan and do. In the first step, a community can become a member of the nation-

wide Sustainable Energy Community Network, which creates a space for communities to engage and

learn from project site visits, seminars, events, and case-studies in order to help them identify and

develop energy projects. In the second step, the community can enter into a three-year partnership

with the SEAI and start designing an Energy Master Plan. During this three year period the community

receives active support and mentoring from SEAI in order to identify energy saving opportunities and

other energy-related activities. In the last step, the community can also apply for dedicated funding

from the SEAI to help realize the Energy Master Plan.64 The program focuses on energy efficiency

first, and the use of renewable energy and smart energy solutions second.


3.9. Consider a separate auction-based support scheme for REC

REC often have difficulties competing over subsidies with larger, more experienced energy

companies which have the capacity to develop a project for the lowest amount of subsidies.

MS can consider separate auctions for REC to compete over renewable energy subsidies. In Ireland,

such a separate auction procedure is being considered for community-led projects in the High Level

Design Paper on Renewable energy Support Schemes.7

3.10. Streamline, simplify and make less burdensome licensing and network connection procedures

Supply and production licensing procedures and requirements need to be reduced or at least

simplified or streamlined so that it is easier to engage in production and supply for REC and CEC. In

particular, responsibilities that do not pertain to either security of supply or consumer protection will

need to be eased, such as licensing and administration fees, publishing requirements of tariffs, bank

guarantees, etc.

In addition, the financial and technical requirements that are imposed to guarantee security of supply

or consumer protection should be adjusted to the geographical scope of supply. It makes, for example,

little sense to subject an energy company involved in nation-wide scale supply to the same financial

and technical requirements as an island REC that only supplies a limited amount of small consumers.

The regulator should also check whether registration and license conditions are appropriate for the

purpose and size of energy communities. Exemptions to certain conditions can then be provided. In

Greece, the minimum supply licensing capital is reduced.

Finally, MS should ensure that grid connection, production licensing and supply licensing procedures

do not take a disproportionate amount of time. In Greece, this has been addressed through priority

treatment in applications for connection to the grid and approval of the environmental conditions for

renewable energy sources and high-efficiency co-generation production units, as well as priority in

consideration of application for production licensing for RES, CHP and hybrid power plants from

Energy Communities compared to other applications in the same territory for the same application

cycle. Furthermore, there is a transfer of production license, meaning they can use their production

license in the same region. In Portugal, Renewable Energy Communities can even be exempted from

prior control/communication, registration and operating certificate or the network operator’s approval,

depending on the installed capacity or the use of the public network for injection of electricity in case

of production units used for self-consumption purposes.

7 See Government of Ireland, ‘Renewable Electricity Support Scheme (RESS). High level design’, June 2018.


3.11. Do not reduce the concept of CEC and REC to mere collective self-consumption and vice versa.

MS should not reduce the concept REC and CEC to the activity collective self-consumption and

energy sharing, as both RED II and EMD envision many more activities for them which will need to

be regulated. In addition, such an equation limits the possible geographical distribution of participants

more severely than prescribed by RED II for REC (cf. comment 6.4.)

On the other hand, the activity collective self-consumption and energy sharing is not necessarily

limited to a REC or CEC either. In particular, collective self-consumption is separately defined as

‘renewables self-consumption’ in Article 21 of REDII and should be enabled independently from

energy communities.

For the sake of clarity, MS are therefore advised to either regulate these activities and REC and CEC

in different legislative acts, such as in Greece, or make a clear distinction between them in order to

avoid confusion, resulting in a limited interpretation and application of both concepts. A good example

in this regard can be observed in France, where it is explicitly mentioned that collective self-

consumption can be extend across multiple buildings when the supply of electricity is made between

one or more producers and one or more consumers linked to each other within a legal entity, being

potentially but not exclusively a REC.


Annex 1. The European Framework The EMD defines the legal concept of “citizen energy communities” (CEC) in article 2 (7) and

associates it with a set of rights, privileges and responsibilities in article 16. The RED II defines the

legal concept of “renewable energy communities” (REC) in article 2 (16) and relates it to a set of

rights, privileges and responsibilities in article 22.

Annex 1 discusses the legal concept of CEC and REC in the first section (1.1.). The associated rights,

privileges and responsibilities are discussed in the second section (1.2.). The third section (1.3.)

explains the relationship between REC and CEC. Finally, the last section (1.4.) gives on overview of

possible institutionalization/implementation scenarios for the EU MS.

1.1. Legal concept

The legal concept of CEC in article 2 (11) EMD and REC in article 2 (16) RED II are defined as follows:

‘renewable energy community’ means a legal entity: (a) which, in accordance with the applicable national law, is based on open and voluntary participation, is autonomous, and is effectively controlled by shareholders or members that are located in the proximity of the renewable energy projects that are owned and developed by that legal entity; (b) the shareholders or members of which are natural persons, SMEs or local authorities, including municipalities; (c) the primary purpose of which is to provide environmental, economic or social community benefits for its shareholders or members or for the local areas where it operates, rather than financial profits;”

‘citizens energy community’ means a legal entity: which is based on voluntary and open participation, effectively controlled by shareholders or members who are natural persons, local authorities, including municipalities, or small enterprises and microenterprises. The primary purpose of a citizens energy community is to provide environmental, economic or social community benefits for its members or the local areas where it operates rather than financial profits. A citizens energy community can be engaged in electricity generation, distribution and supply, consumption, aggregation, storage or energy efficiency services, generation of renewable electricity, charging services for electric vehicles or provide other energy services to its shareholders or members;”

These definitions are further complemented by recital 44 EMD, which states that decision-making

power in CEC “should be limited to those members or shareholders that are not engaged in large

scale commercial activity and for which the energy sector does not constitute a primary area of

economic activity.” Large energy companies will thus be allowed to participate but cannot hold any

decision-making power. Article 22 RED, on the other hand, provides that mainly private households

are envisioned to participate in REC. Enterprises can only participate to the extent that “their

participation does not constitute their primary commercial or professional activity”. Energy companies,

irrespective of their size, will thus not be allowed to participate in a REC.


Both concepts can be conceptualized in the following table (Table 1):

Table 1: Overview conceptual dimensions Citizen and Renewable Energy Communities

EMD RED II

Energy sector

Electricity market (technology-neutral) Renewable energy market (heat and electricity based on renewable energy)

Legal form Any Any

Participation

Structure Actors Structure Actors

Open and voluntary Any Open and voluntary

Natural persons, local authorities and SMEs whose participation does not constitute their primary economic activity

Control

Structure Actors Structure Actors

Effective control

Natural persons, local authorities and small and micro-sized enterprises

Effective control Natural persons, local authorities and SMEs whose participation does not constitute their primary economic activity

Autonomy Large energy companies cannot exercise any decision-making power

Explicitly mentioned

Geographical limitation

No Those in control need to be located proximity of projects owned and developed by the community

Activities

Generation, distribution, supply, consumption, sharing, aggregation and storage of electricity

Energy-efficiency services, EV charging-services, other energy-related services (commercial)

Generation, distribution, consumption, storage, sale, aggregation, supply and sharing of renewable energy

Energy-related services (commercial)

Purpose

Social, economic and environmental benefits for members/shareholders or the local area in which it operates

Social, economic and environmental benefits for members/shareholders or the local area where it operates


1.1.1. Energy sector

CEC operate within the electricity sector and can be renewables and fossil fuel based (i.e. technology-

neutral). REC, by contrast, can operate within both the electricity and the heating sector, if they are

renewable energy based (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Energy sources of Renewable and Citizen Energy Communities8

1.1.2. Legal entity

There are a variety of legal organizational forms available to energy communities, including

cooperatives, public/private limited liability companies, (limited) partnerships, trusts, non-profit

organizations, associations, social benefit companies, community interest companies, public utility

companies, non-profit customers-owned enterprises, etc. Some of these organizational forms are

commonly available in all of the EU MS (e.g. cooperatives, limited liability companies, etc.). Others

are quite novel and unique (e.g. Società Benefit in Italy9).

Empirical evidence shows that the cooperative form is most commonly used by energy communities

– a finding that is also support by the EC TF Questionnaire (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Most common legal organizational forms for Energy Communities

8 Figure presented in a powerpoint presentation of J. Steinkohl and M. Jasiak at the NSCG event on the 18th of June 2019. Original source: Directorate-General for Energy. 9 http://www.societabenefit.net/.

Other

sources of energy

100% RES-E RES-E

http://www.societabenefit.net/


1.1.3. Actors involved

A CEC allows for any type of actor join the community, but can only be effectively controlled by natural

persons, small and micro-enterprises and local authorities, including municipalities, irrespective of

their geographical location. This definition is broader than the one provided in RED II, as it also leaves

room for communities-of-interest10 (e.g. Retenergie11) or virtual communities (e.g. Solardachbörse12).

For REC, only natural persons, local authorities and SMEs whose participation does not constitute

their primary economic activity are allowed to participate. In addition, separate provisions in article

22.4 (f) and (h) RED II are dedicated to the participation of low-income and vulnerable households

and public authorities in REC.

REC can be effectively controlled by natural persons, SMEs whose participation do not constitute

their primary economic activity and local authorities, provided that all of these actors are located in

proximity of the community energy project. In this light, REC will most likely be so-called ‘communities-

of-location’;13 i.e. a community that is connected through a common place, such as a common

neighborhood, municipality or village. Examples of such initiatives are the ‘Ballen-Brundby Energy

Cooperative’14 in Denmark and the ‘Comunità Solare Locale’15 in Italy.

1.1.4. Open and voluntary participation

The extent to which energy community initiatives are ‘open’ will depend on which actors it allows to

participate; sometimes participation is limited to certain types of actors (e.g. customers and family of

customers in the case of EWS Schönau), or extra requirements are imposed, such as a geographical

connection (e.g. Amelander Energie Coöperatie16).

In addition, a certain amount of shares will have to be purchased before being allowed to enter into

an energy community. The price-tag of these shares tends to vary between 50 (e.g. Retenergie) and

500 EUR (e.g. EWS Schönau17). For vulnerable households this often constitutes an obstacle to join

energy community initiatives, since priorities will lie elsewhere.

The extent to which participation is ‘voluntary’ will often depend on the specified period of time in

which the members or shareholders are allowed to leave, as well as the mandatory notice period (e.g.

in Ecopower members can leave after 6 years, taking into account a notice period of 6 months). There

may be a need to differentiate between leaving the community as consumer and as member with a

share. In terms of changing of supplier, EMD is very strict on consumer rights.

10 Gordon Walker, ‘What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use?’ Elsevier 2008, p. 4402. 11 https://www.energy-democracy.net/?p=340. 12 http://www.solardachboerse.de/marktplatz/. 13 Gordon Walker, ‘What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use?’ Elsevier 2008, p. 4402. 14 http://seacourse.dk/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=District+Heating+Plant%2C+Ballen-Brundby. 15 https://comunitasolare.eu/. 16 https://www.amelandenergie.nl/. 17 https://www.ews-schoenau.de/.

https://www.energy-democracy.net/?p=340

http://www.solardachboerse.de/marktplatz/

http://seacourse.dk/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=District+Heating+Plant%2C+Ballen-Brundby

https://comunitasolare.eu/

https://www.amelandenergie.nl/

https://www.ews-schoenau.de/


1.1.5. Effective control

There are many ways for an actor or a community to acquire effective control over an energy

community. Article 2 (56) EMD defines ‘control’ as:

means rights, contracts or any other means which, either separately or in combination and having regard

to the considerations of fact or law involved, confer the possibility of exercising decisive influence on an

undertaking, in particular by:

(a) ownership or the right to use all or part of the assets of an undertaking; (b) rights or contracts which confer decisive influence on the composition, voting or decisions of the

organs of an undertaking;”

The definition differentiates between effective control de jure and de facto. De jure effective control

can be achieved through ownership and the right to use all or part of the communities’ assets, the

acquirement of a majority of the voting rights, and preferential shares that enable its holders to appoint

the majority of the board. De facto effective control, by contrast, can be brought about when it is highly

likely that a majority will be achieved at the shareholders’ meeting considering the track record of

present shareholders in past shareholder meetings, or the dispersed allocation of remaining shares.

1.1.6. Autonomy (specifically mentioned for RECs)

Autonomy is closely related to effective control, but places a higher emphasis on resilience of the

energy communities against influence from external actors in order to safeguard the collective will of

the members. Recital 71 further RED II further clarifies that “to avoid abuse and to ensure broad

participation, renewable energy communities should be capable of remaining autonomous from

individual members and other traditional market actors that participate in the community as members

or shareholders, or who cooperate through other means such as investment.”

The principle of autonomy has been introduced in RED II for REC specifically, although Recital 44 in

EMD also identifies a principle of autonomy in relation to CEC, namely the explicit prohibition for large

energy companies to exercise any decision-making power in the community.

1.1.7. Activities

Both CEC and REC can exercise similar activities, including generation/production, distribution,

supply, aggregation, consumption, sharing, storage of energy, but also the provision of energy-related

services. In contrast, provisions of EV charging services and energy-efficiency services is not explicitly

mentioned for renewable energy communities.

Production of electricity18 or generation of renewable energy is often the primary activity of energy

communities. This activity either stands alone (e.g. Beauvent) or is combined with other activities,

such as supply (e.g. Ecopower).

18 Cf. art. 2 (31) EMD which states that generation is the production of electricity.


Supply is defined in article 2 (12) EMD as the sale, including resale, of electricity to participants of

the community19 (e.g. Ballen – Brundy District Heating) and/or outside customers (e.g. EWS

Schönau). Either the energy community will produce the energy it supplies (e.g. Ecopower) or it will

buy (in part) the energy from an external supplier (e.g. Amelander Energie Coöperatie).

Sales is related to the activity of supply (supra), and can be done in different ways, either through

power purchase agreements or peer-to-peer trading arrangements. Peer-to-peer trading is defined in

RED II as “the sale of renewable energy between market participants by means of a contract with pre-

determined conditions governing the automated execution and settlement of the transaction, either

directly between market participants or indirectly through a certified third-party market participant,

such as an aggregator.”20

Aggregation of multiple customer loads or generated electricity for sale, for purchase or auction in

any electricity market.21 Energy communities can aggregate the electricity produced by the production

units owned by the community and/or the consumption profiles of their participants and/or external

customers (e.g. Abbassa la bolletta22) and offer these aggregated loads collectively on the wholesale,

retail or balancing market.

Collective self-consumption can be seen as a combination of energy production, distribution, supply

and consumption within a geographically confined area, either at a building scale (e.g. multi-level

apartments) or block scale (different buildings).23 The RED II specifically targets collective self-

consumption by introducing in Article 2 (15) RED II the term “jointly acting renewables self-consumers”

which is defined as “renewable self-consumers […] who are located in the same building or multi-

apartment block.”

Sharing is, in both the EMD and RED II, allowed within the community for electricity or renewable

energy produced using generation or production assets owned by the CEC or REC (e.g. EWS

Schönau eG). However, both directives remains on the surface on what energy sharing means,

although recital 46 EMD does provide some clarification: “electricity sharing enables members or

shareholders to be supplied with electricity from generating installations within the community without

being in direct physical proximity to the generating installation and without being behind a single

metering point.” An example of community energy sharing is Schoonschip.

Energy sharing is seen by TF members as key opportunity to optimizing the economics of the grid.

Real investment cost of the grid part in which the sharing is performed is reflected, an optimized use

of infrastructure/RES via including all actors in the chain is enabled. Balancing of local generation and

demand requires less grid connection capacity that needs to be contracted.

Distribution of electricity on high-voltage, medium-voltage and low-voltage distribution systems

ensures the delivery to participants of the community, outside customers and/or outside consumers,

but does not include supply. Whether this activity is allowed will depend on the member state. The

19 Based on definition in EMD. 20 Art. 2 (18) RED II. 21 Based on definition in EMD. 22 https://www.altroconsumo.it/gruppoacquisto/abbassalabolletta/chiuso. 23 Article 2 (15) RED II defines “jointly acting renewables self-consumers” as “renewables self-consumers […] who are located in the same building or multi-apartment block.”

https://www.altroconsumo.it/gruppoacquisto/abbassalabolletta/chiuso


most prominent example in this regard can be found in Germany, where energy community initiatives

such as EWS Schönau have shown to be capable of operating the local distribution grid in a safe and

efficient way for many years.

Energy services primarily consist out of the provision of energy saving and efficiency services to the

participants and/or customers of the energy community. Examples of such services are free energy

saving check-ups, energy saving tips and tricks, a shopping guide for energy-efficient appliances, a

mobile application that helps to manage energy saving, the rental of power meters, subsidies for

isolation and replacement of heat pumps, energy auditing, consumption monitoring, etc. Examples of

energy communities providing such services are Ecopower and EWS Schönau.

Electro-mobility services such as community car sharing and pooling, EV charging station

operation, EV charging cards, etc. (see e.g. EWS Schönau).

1.1.8. Proximity (specifically mentioned for RECs)

Members or shareholders in effective control of a REC need to be located in proximity of the projects owned and developed by the community. The interpretation of the element of ‘proximity’ is left to the discretion of the MS.

1.1.9. Purpose

Rather than profit-making, the primary purpose of both CEC and REC is to provide environmental,

social and economic benefits to her members or shareholders, or the area in which it operates.

The divide between profit-making and economic benefits is not always clear. To the extent that an

energy community issues annual dividends to its shareholder or members and reinvests a part of its

profit in expansion of activities and services, it is doubtful whether it be considered distinct from

business-as-usual. In this case, additional benefits will need to be provided. A distinction can be made

between economic, social and environmental benefits:


Table 2: Overview of potential social, economic and environmental benefits of Energy Communities

Economic

Local value creation

Keeping added economic value within the communities; creating local economies. For example,

EWS Schönau owns the local distribution grid and grid maintenance works are outsourced to local

companies. The tax payer’s money for grid maintenance is as such kept inside of the community.

Employment opportunities

Creating local employment opportunities, which prevents a migration of potential talents to big cities. For example, EWS Schönau eG employs ca. 110 people - most of whom are young people raised in the community. Financial benefits

Reduced electricity bills by promoting energy saving, reducing annual dividends (EWS Schönau), the price of energy or exempting customers from fixed costs (e.g. Ecopower).

Social

Energy democracy

Energy communities are given ownership and decision-making power over their energy production

and supply. They get to decide either directly through a general assembly (e.g. Thessaloniki Energy

Cooperative) or indirectly through the board of directors (e.g. EWS Schönau eG) on the

development and operation of new energy projects.

Energy justice

According to the principle that those impacted by a project should also receive (some of) its benefits.

Education

Awareness-raising on climate and energy issues.

Social cohesion and trust

Nurturing a culture of cooperation.

Energy autonomy

Create energy independence and local security of supply.

Environmental

Local production of zero-emission energy

Increase the share of renewable energy at the local level.

Less air pollution

Avoid air pollution consequential to production of heat or electricity from fossil fuels.

Aside from benefits for its members or shareholders or the area in which it operates, energy

communities can also have wider benefits for society. According to the results of the EC TF


Questionnaire, the most prominent actual benefits that energy can provide are (1) the promotion of

energy saving and efficiency (60%), (2) increase democratic support for RES projects (50%), (3)

decrease energy poverty, investment in local infrastructure and emission-reduction (45%); (4)

increase trust, social acceptance, reduce energy prices (40%); (5) increase security of supply (35%);

(6) foster local economic growth (30%); (7) generate jobs (20%); and (8) provide return on investment

(15%).

Figure 4: Overview of most prominent societal benefits provided by Energy Communities (top 5)

1.2. Associated rights, privileges and responsibilities

Both article 16 EMD and article 22 RED II allocate a set of rights, privileges and responsibilities to

CEC and REC in order to create a level playing-field on the relevant energy markets. These rights,

privileges and responsibilities are captured in the following table (Table 3):

Table 3: Overview rights and responsibilities Citizen and Renewable Energy Communities

Activities CEC REC

Generation Allowed Allowed

Rights

Non-discriminatory, fair, proportionate and transparent licensing procedure

YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)

Non-discriminatory, fair, proportionate and transparent registration procedure

YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)

Non-discriminatory, transparent and cost-reflective network charges

YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)

Responsibilities


Financially responsible for imbalances YES

Distribution Discretion

MS N.S.

Rights

Own, establish, purchase, lease and autonomously manage a distribution network Discretion

MS

An agreement with the DSO

YES

(if distribution is allowed)

Exemption from the requirement to procure the energy the community uses to cover energy losses and the non-frequency ancillary services in its system according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures

Discretion MS

Requirement under Article 6 (1) that tariffs, or the methodologies underlying their calculation, are approved prior to their entry into force in accordance with Article 59 (1)

Discretion MS

Exemption from the requirements under Article 32(1) to procure flexibility services and under Article 32(3) to develop the operator's system on the basis of network development plans

Discretion MS

Exemption from the requirement under Article 33(2) not to own, develop, manage or operate recharging points for electric vehicles

Discretion MS

Exemption from the requirement under Article 36(1) not to own, develop, manage or operate energy storage facilities

Discretion MS

Responsibilities

Unbundling requirements

YES


Grant regulated or negotiated third party access (TPA) to outsiders

YES


Pay appropriate network charges at the connection point

YES


Supply Allowed Allowed

Rights

Non-discriminatory, fair, proportionate and transparent licensing procedure

YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)

Non-discriminatory, fair, proportionate and transparent registration procedure

YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)


YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)

Responsibilities

Respect the freedom to switch suppliers

YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)


Financially responsible for imbalances YES

Sharing Allowed Allowed

Rights

Cooperation of the relevant DSO, subject to fair compensation as assessed by the regulatory authority, to facilitate transfers within the community

YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)

Arrange within the community sharing of electricity/renewable energy that is produced by the production units owned by the community subject to the provisions of this article and retaining community members’ rights and obligations as consumers

YES YES

Responsibilities

Subject to applicable network charges, tariffs and levies, in line with a transparent cost-benefit analysis of distributed energy resources developed by the national competent authority

YES

YES

(indirect right)

Consumption Allowed Allowed

Rights


YES

(indirect right)

YES

(indirect right)

Collective self-consumption Allowed Allowed

Rights

Cost-reflective, transparent and non-discriminatory network charges, accounting separately for the electricity fed into the grid and the electricity consumed from the grid

YES

Cost-reflective transparent and non-discriminatory network charges YES YES

Sale/Purchase Allowed Allowed

Rights

Access to all electricity markets either directly or through aggregation in a non-discriminatory manner YES YES

Sell renewable energy through power purchase agreements YES

Other

Responsibilities vis-à-vis members/shareholders

Allowed to leave the community

YES

(indirect right)

Not lose their rights and obligations as household customers or active customers

YES

(indirect right)

Equal and non-discriminatory treatment of consumers that participate

YES

(indirect right)

General rights and privileges

Treated in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner with regard to their activities, rights and obligations as final customers, generators, suppliers, distribution system operators or market participants engaged in aggregation

YES

YES

(indirect right)

An assessment of the existing barriers and potential development of the communities YES

Removal of unjustified regulatory and administrative barriers YES


(indirect right)

Tools to facilitate access to finance and information

YES

(indirect right)

Support scheme that takes into account the specificities of renewable energy communities YES

Regulatory and capacity-building support is provided to public authorities in enabling and setting up renewable energy communities, and in helping authorities to participate directly

YES

(indirect right)

Note that to the extent the legal provisions in article 16 EMD and article 22 RED do not indicate

otherwise, it is assumed that the provisions relevant for the different activities apply mutatis mutandis

to a CEC and REC.

Considering the above-provided analysis, it can be said that the rights and responsibilities attached

to CECs are focused on creating a level playing field with more respect for member state’s autonomy,

while for RECs, it is aimed at active support through a set of additional privileges, including:

• an assessment of the existing barriers and potential development of the communities;

• removal of unjustified regulatory and administrative barriers;

• tools to facilitate access to finance and information;

• a support scheme that considers their specificities;

• provision of regulatory and capacity-building support to public authorities in enabling and

setting up renewable energy communities, and in helping authorities to participate directly.

1.3. The relationship between citizen and renewable energy communities

1.3.1. Legal concept

Both concepts share a common core:

• REC and CEC are legal entities with specific characteristics (limited resources in terms of time,

technical know-how and financial means) which flow from their governance requirements,

membership structure and purpose. This justifies a separate legal framework in order to

provide a level playing field;

• local authorities, citizens and private enterprises can participate alongside each other;

• the primary purpose is to provide environmental, social and economic benefits to her members

or shareholders, or the area in which it operates;

• both CEC and REC can exercise similar activities, including generation/production,

distribution, supply, aggregation, consumption, sharing, storage of energy, but also the

provision of energy-related services.

Beside these communalities, there are also some fundamental differences:

• CEC operate within the electricity sector and can be both renewables and fossil fuel based

(i.e. technology-neutral). A REC, in contrast, can operate within both the electricity and the

heating sector, provided that they are renewable energy based;


• any actor can participate in a CEC, as long as members or shareholders that are engaged in

large scale commercial activity and for which the energy sector constitute a primary area of

economic activity do not exercise any decision-making power. REC, on the other hand, have

a more restricted membership and only allow natural persons, local authorities and SMEs

whose participation does not constitute their primary economic activity. In addition, a separate

provision in article 22 RED is dedicated to the participation of low-income and vulnerable

households and public authorities in REC;

• REC can be effectively controlled by SMEs located in proximity of the community energy

project, whilst CEC cannot be effectively controlled by medium-sized enterprises, but only

small and micro-sized enterprises;

• The provision of energy efficiency services and EV-charging services are explicitly mentioned

for CEC, but not for REC.

1.3.2. Rights, privileges and responsibilities

The rights and responsibilities attached to the concept of CEC are focused on creating a level playing

field and leave more room for interpretation by the MS. The framework for REC, on the other hand,

consists out of a set of privileges which are aimed at actively supporting these initiatives, such as:

• an assessment of the existing barriers and potential development of the communities

• removal of unjustified regulatory and administrative barriers;

• tools to facilitate access to finance and information;

• a support scheme that takes into account the specificities of renewable energy communities.

It should be noted that citizen energy communities can be granted the right to attain the status of a

DSO. This has not been explicitly mentioned for renewable energy communities, although assumed

to apply mutatis mutandis by some authors24 in light of article 22.4 (e), which states that “renewable

energy communities are not subject to discriminatory treatment with regard to their activities, rights

and obligations as […] distribution system operators…”.

Aside from these differences, both CEC and REC have several rights and responsibilities in common

(including the right to fair, proportionate and transparent licensing procedures, the right to cost-

reflective, transparent and non-discriminatory charges and the right cooperation of the DSO to

facilitate energy sharing and the responsibility to respect the freedom to switch supplier of its

customers and/or members or shareholders.

24 Frieden, D., Tuerk A., Roberts J., d’Herbemont S., Gubina A., ‘Collective self-consumption and energy communities: Overview of emerging regulatory approach in Europe’, H2020 project COMPILE, June 2019.


Considering the above, the relationship between CEC and REC can captured in a pyramid (Figure 5).

This is also in accordance with the vision communicated by Directorate General for Energy of the

European Commission (DG Energy).

Figure 5: Relationship between Renewable and Citizen Energy Communities25

The basic idea behind this figure is that REC situated at the top because they can claim more rights

and privileges (vertical line) and have more strict governance criteria than CEC (horizontal line).

To summarize, it can be said that REC are 100% renewable energy based, have stricter governance

criteria and are actively supported and enjoy favorable conditions for RES support. CEC, on the other

hand, have less strict governance criteria due to a more open membership, and enjoy rights that

promote non-discriminatory treatment and a level-playing field.

1.4. Institutionalization approaches

Different approaches can be identified when institutionalizing energy communities within the CEP

framework, or beyond.26

In relation to the CEP, there are three possible implementation scenarios: an ‘integrated but

differentiated’ approach, an ‘integrated and ambitious’ approach and the ‘box ticking’ approach:

• In the integrated and ambitious approach, the rights, privileges and responsibilities in RED

II are allocated to CECs. In this scenario, MS will most probably fuse both the concept of RECs

and CECs into one legislative act.

• In the integrated but differentiated approach, a MS merges both REC and CEC into one

concept and one legislative act based on the common core both concepts share. In contrast

to the integrated and ambitious approach, the rights, privileges and responsibilities in RED II

are not allocated to this entity unconditionally. Instead the allocation will be dependent on a

sub-classification based on the specific governance criteria for REC.

25 Figure presented in a powerpoint presentation of J. Steinkohl and M. Jasiak at the NSCG event on the 18th of June 2019. Original source: Directorate-General for Energy.

26 These approaches have been identified by DG for Energy. Source: powerpoint presentation of J. Steinkohl and M. Jasiak at the NSCG event on the 18th of June 2019. Original source: Directorate-General for Energy.


• The box ticking model implies that MS simply copy-paste the provisions in the EMD and RED

II.

If so desired, MS can choose to go beyond the CEP and institutionalize also other energy communities

that fall outside the scope of the CEP. In this regard, three approaches can be identified: the ‘liberal’

approach, the ‘national golden’ standard approach and the ‘all-inclusive’ approach:

• In the liberal model, MS can try to experiment with other forms of energy communities. The

governance criteria will be broader and thus allow more forms of energy communities to be

included. Concordantly, the associated rights, privileges will be more restricted.

• In the national golden standard model, more strict governance criteria will apply, allowing

for only few community energy projects to qualify. Accordantly, the associated rights,

privileges and responsibilities will be more extensive. In the regulatory sandbox model, only

few projects will be allowed to enjoy the exemptions under the experimental legislation,

allowing for few community energy projects to be included. The associated rights, privileges

and responsibilities will often, but not necessarily, be more extensive.

• In the all-inclusive model, a MS can institutionalize tailor-made frameworks for different types

of energy communities, depending on their specific and differentiated needs and

characteristics. Here, the frameworks for REC and CEC will only be a piece of the puzzle.


Annex 2. Overview of National Frameworks for Energy Communities in the EU Annex 2 is structured into two sections. The first section (2.1.) discusses the existing and emerging

legal frameworks for energy communities in the EU. The second section (2.2.) formulates an

intermediate statement.

2.1. Member States with existing or emerging legal frameworks

Existing and emerging legal frameworks for energy communities have be identified in Belgium

(Wallonia), France, Austria, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and

Slovenia. In a few other MS discussions have started, e.g. in the Czech Republik a ministerial working

group on Energy Communities has been constituted in December 2019

Table 4 gives an overview of the current status of existing regulation and regulations in preparation

regarding energy communities in the different countries of EU-28. The table shows whether a

regulation is already in force (●), or whether a regulation is being drafted (●).

Table 4: Overview current status of existing or emerging legal frameworks for Energy Communities in the EU

AT

WA

VL

BG

HR

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

ES

FI

FR

GR

HU

IE

IT

LV

LT

LU

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SK

Sl

SE

IR

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

2.1.1. Belgium (Wallonia)

2.1.1.1. Existing landscape

In Belgium, Wallonia, the cooperative form is most common for energy communities in the sense of

the CEP. 27 Examples are Vents du Sud,28 Partago29 and Courant d’Air30.

In addition, there are currently two projects operational under a regulatory sandbox:31 Mérygrid and

E-cloud. Both projects involve a series of industrial actors which cooperate on a contractual basis in

order to share and consume locally generated electricity. These projects can, due to a lack of legal

entity, not be classified as CEC nor REC in the sense of the CEP.

2.1.1.2. Law on energy communities

On the 30th of April 2019, the Walloon government officially published a Decree that modifies the

Decree on the organization of the regional electricity market, the organization of the gas market, and

the tariff methodology applicable to gas and electricity DSOs, with the view on fostering the

27 This is also confirmed by the findings of the EC TF Questionnaire. 28 https://www.ventsdusud.be/. 29 https://www.partago.be/ 30 https://www.courantdair.be/wp/. 31 Cf. Article 27 of the Decree of 12 April 2001.

https://www.ventsdusud.be/

https://www.partago.be/

https://www.courantdair.be/wp/


development of “Communauté d'Energie Renouvelable” (CER) or ‘Renewable Energy Community’ .

A variety of actors were involved in the design of the law, including DSOs, regulators, suppliers, civil

society groups (primarily not-for-profit organizations in renewable energy systems and ecological

matters) and the Cluster TWEED (Technologie Wallonne Energie, Environnement et Développement

durable).

Legal concept - Renewable energy community

A CER is defined in the Decree as a legal entity that consists of a group of participants with the aim

to share, via the public distribution or local transmission network, electricity that is exclusively

produced from renewable energy sources or high-quality cogeneration by productions units and, as

the case may be, storage units, held by the said legal person. The primary objective of a CER is to

provide environmental, economic and social benefits to its participants rather than profit-making.32

The participants of a CER needs to be located in the local perimeter where the entity carries out its

activities. “Local perimeter” is defined in the law as an area where de connection points for injection

and take-off are located downstream of one or more public medium/low-voltage transformer stations.

These interconnection points must also be situated within a geographical area that is technically,

socially, environmentally and economically optimal for the network considering the promotion of

collective self-consumption.33 The further implementation of this concept is left to the discretion of the

Walloon Government, which, however, needs to take into account the technical limitations of the

network and the type of participants, as well as consult with the Walloon Commission for Energy

(CWaPE) and the distribution system operators (DSO) first.34

Participation in a CER is free and voluntary for any natural person, local authority or SME situated in

the same local area. Again, the list can be further specified by the Walloon Government, with the sole

limitation that companies whose participation constitutes their primary commercial or professional

activity cannot be included. The list can, furthermore, vary in accordance with the relevant local

perimeter.

The Decree leaves further organizational aspects to the discretion of a CER , provided that the

statutes of a CER contain at least the following elements:

• provisions relating to the effective control of the CER by its participants;

• provisions relating to the independence and autonomy of the CER;

• provisions with regard to the representation of its participants.

The Government can further specify minimum provisions for the statutes of a CER. Again these rules

may vary in accordance with the local perimeter concerned, as well as the quality of the participants

or the legal form assumed by the community.

32 Art. 2ter Walloon Decree on CER. 33 Art. 2quinquis Walloon Decree on CER. 34 Art. 42c. §1. Walloon Decree on CER.


Activities, rights and responsibilities

The CER can produce, consume, share,35 store and sell renewable electricity. These activities are

limited to the electricity sector, which needs to be produced from either renewable energy or quality

cogeneration.

The focus of the Walloon law is primarily on collective self-consumption. It sets out a framework for

participants in a CER to self-consume electricity produced by production units managed by the CER

during the same quarter hour period. This needs to be done in the local perimeter in which it carries

out this activity , i.e. an area where de connection points for injection and take-off are located

downstream of one or more public medium/low-voltage transformer stations.

To the extent that a CER is involved in self-consumption, The Walloon law introduces the possibility

for a specific tariff that reflects CER’s use of the network, and, potentially, also their socio-

environmental value through reduced policy-related charges. The applied tariff methodology will in

any case need to contribute to the development of CERs and reflect the contribution and actual cost

of CERs for the network, whilst at the same time avoiding disproportionate solidarization of the total

costs of the networks and the contribution to policy-related costs. In addition, the manager of the

network to which a CER is connected must apply this specific charge in a progressive manner,

according to the threshold of collective self-consumed electricity that is achieved by a CER.

A CER is subject to a license to be allowed to operate on the local distribution or transmission network.

This is linked to conditions set per decree, and includes the following documents:

• a descriptive report of the administrative and electrical situation of each future

participant;

• historical or simulated electricity production profiles from renewable energy sources or

high-quality CHP and local consumption that justify a CER;

• the planned measures to synchronize electricity consumption and renewable energy

production within the community with a view to optimizing electricity flows.

After consulting the CWaPE and in consultation with the network operators, the government can

specify the content of the documents referred to and establish the terms and conditions, rights and

obligations of a CER, in particular in terms of thresholds and modalities of the procedure for granting,

maintaining, revising, revoking and, where applicable, the compensation that is due for the

examination of the application for authorization. These conditions, rights, obligations, thresholds,

procedures and fees can be differentiated, in particular based on the local scope or type of participants

involved.

35 Sharing of electricity is allowed within the community if the shared electricity is produced from the production units owned by that community.


Every participant in a CER is equipped with an external meter that reads the load curves during the

same quarter hour period for verification of the collective self-consumption. On the basis of this

measurement it is also checked that:

• The collective self-consumption does not exceed the total electricity production (including that

from a storage facility), or the total electricity consumption (including those used to charge

storage resources).

• The amount of electricity allocated to a participant is in accordance with the exchange rules

laid down and does not exceed the consumption.

Each individual participants in a CER retain the rights and obligations arising from their network user

status and are treated in a non-discriminatory manner with respect to other users of that network.

2.1.1.3. Relation to the CEP

The Walloon decree on CER was already in its final adoption stages when the RED II was officially

adopted. Whilst some modifications were still made to make the Decree compliant with the relevant

provisions in RED II, most of the framework was drafted without the intention of being a full

implementation.

The Walloon framework is primarily focussed on the activity of collective self-consumption and

accordingly formulates a set of rights, privileges and responsibilities. This is more limited than the

framework introduced in RED II for REC, which also includes rights and responsibilities in relation to

other types of activities, including production and supply.

In relation to the activity of collective self-consumption, the framework gives most notably shape to

the right to fair, cost-reflective, transparent and non-discriminatory network charges in article 22.4 (d)

RED II and article 16.3 (d) juncto article 15.2 (e) EMD by introducing a right to a specific local grid

tariff, which will need to be further specified by the regulator; and the right to cooperation with the

DSO in order to transfers within the community in the sense of art. 16.1 (d) EMD and 22.4 (c) RED II.

The Walloon concept of CER is almost identical to that of REC in RED II. The element of ‘proximity’

is given a more extensive interpretation through the requirement that the participants in a Renewable

Energy Community need to be located in the local perimeter where the entity carries out its activities.

“Local perimeter” is defined in the law as an area where de connection points for injection and take-

off are located downstream of one or more public medium/low-voltage transformer stations

The governance principles of ‘effective control’, ‘autonomy’ and ‘independence’ are repeated and

deliberately left to the discretion of Renewable Energy Communities to determine in their statutes.

However, the Walloon Government can decide to set of minimum rules, which may vary in accordance

with the type and quality of participants, the legal form assumed by the community, the technical

limitations of the network, and the local perimeter concerned.

The tables (Table 5, Table 6) below summarize and present the comparison of the Walloon law on CER to the EU regulations:


Table 5: Comparison legal concept in Walloon law to EU regulation

EMD RED II Walloon law

Name Citizen energy community Renewable energy community Renewable energy community

Energy sector Electricity sector (tech-neutral)

Heat & electricity sector (renewable energy based)

Electricity sector (renewable energy or quality cogeneration)

Legal form Any Any Any

Participation

Structure Actors Structure Actors Structure Actors

Open & Voluntary

Any entity Open & voluntary


Open & Voluntary Natural person, local authority and SMEs whose participation does not constitute their primary economic activity

Control Structure Actors Structure Actors Structure Actors

“Effective” control

Natural persons; Small and micro-sized enterprises; and/or Local authorities

‘Effective’ control & Autonomy


Left to the discretion of the community in the first place. However, the government may decide to formulate a minimum set of requirements with regard to ‘effective control’

Natural person, local authority and SMEs whose participation does not constitute their primary economic activity


Yes Left to the discretion of the community in the first place. However; the government may decide to formulate a minimum set of requirements with regard to ‘autonomy’



Participants need to be located within local perimeter where it carries out its activities (i.e. an area whose connection points are located downstream of one or more medium and/or low voltage public transformer stations)

Purpose Social, economic and environmental benefits for members/shareholders or the local area in which it operates


Provide environmental, social and economic benefits at the local level by synchronizing and optimizing of electricity flows

Activities Generation, distribution, supply, consumption, sharing, aggregation and storage of electricity, energy-efficiency services, EV charging-services, other energy-related services

Generation, distribution, consumption, storage, sale, aggregation, supply and sharing of renewable energy Energy-related services (commercial)

Production, supply, aggregation, sharing, storage, energy efficiency services and other energy-related services are allowed


Table 6: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Walloon law to EU regulation

Rights, privileges and responsibilities EMD RED II

Walloon law


Provision of regulatory and capacity-building support provided to public authorities in relation to energy communities

YES YES No

Identification/assessment of barriers YES Has started

Removal of unjustified regulatory and administrative barriers

YES


YES No

Support scheme that takes into account the specificities of energy communities

YES Planning one

Type of support YES Operational

Production Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Distribution Discretion MS N.S. Not allowed

Supply Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Sharing

Allowed (for the electricity

produced by the production units

owned by the community)

Allowed (for the electricity produced by

the production units owned by the community)


the production units managed by the

community)

Rights

Cooperation of the relevant DSO to facilitate transfers

YES YES YES (detailed description of cooperation)

Subject to applicable network charges, tariffs and levies

YES YES Specific tariffs

Collective self-consumption Allowed Allowed (building level) Allowed (block and

building level)

Rights

cost reflective, transparent and non-discriminatory network charges

YES YES Specific tariffs

Aggregation Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Storage Allowed Allowed Allowed

Sale Allowed Allowed Allowed

Rights

Access to all electricity markets either directly or through aggregation in a non-discriminatory manner

YES YES N.S.

Energy-efficiency services Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Other energy-related services Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

EV Charging services Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.


2.1.2. France


France has experience with citizen and community initiatives. A good overview of these citizen energy projects can be found on the website of Energie partagé,36 which is a federation of 237 projects that

are labelled ‘citizen energy’.37 France, furthermore, counts over fifty renewable energy cooperatives,38 of which the most prominent examples are Mobicoop,39 I-ENER,40 Jurascic41 and Enercoop.42


The French Energy and Climate Law43 introduces a framework for “Communauté d’Energie

Renouvelable” (CER) or ‘Renewable Energy Communities’ in article 6bis A. The concept and

associated rights and responsibilities are integrated in Book II “Demand-side Management and the

Development of Renewable Energy of the French Energy Code”. The legal concept is introduced and

explained in the introductory chapter. The associated rights, privileges and responsibilities in chapter

five on collective self-consumption. The further modalities of application of article 6bis A will be

specified through a Decree of the Council of State.

Legal concept – Renewable energy community

A CER is described as a legal entity to which participation is open and voluntary and which is

effectively controlled by its shareholders or members that are located in proximity of the renewable

energy projects to which it has subscribed and which it has developed. Those shareholders or

members are natural persons, SMEs, local authorities or groups of these actors.

The primary objective of a CER is to provide environmental, economic or social benefits to the

shareholders or the members or at the local area in which it operates, rather than profit-making. 44 An

SME whose participation constitutes its primary commercial or professional activity is not allowed to

participate.45


A CER is authorized to produce, consume, share,46 store and sell renewable energy (including

through purchase agreements), and has access to all relevant energy markets, directly through an

36 https://energie-partagee.org/. 37 https://energie-partagee.org/energie-citoyenne/tous-les-projets/. 38 Bauwens, T., Gotchev, B. and Holstenkamp, L., ‘What drives the development of community energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives’, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 13, March 2016, pp. 136-147. 39 https://www.mobicoop.fr/. 40 https://i-ener.eus/. 41 https://www.jurascic.com/. 42 https://www.enercoop.fr/. 43 http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-700.html.

44 Art. L. 211-3-2 French Energy Code. 45 Art. L. 211-3-3 French Energy Code. 46 Energy sharing is allowed for renewable energy produced by the production units held by the community.

https://energie-partagee.org/

https://energie-partagee.org/energie-citoyenne/tous-les-projets/

https://www.mobicoop.fr/

https://i-ener.eus/

https://www.jurascic.com/

https://www.enercoop.fr/

http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-700.html


aggregator.47 The activity of distribution is excluded through the explicit prohibition for a CER to own

or operate a distribution network.48

The focus of French law is also on collective self-consumption. Collective self-consumption can take

place at building level, as well as block level across multiple buildings when the supply of electricity

is made between one or more producers and one or more consumers linked to each other within a

legal entity – potentially, but not exclusively a CER. The take-off and injections points of both the

production facilities as the consumer need to be located at the low-voltage network and in

geographical proximity of each other. The Minister of Energy is authorized to further specify these

criteria.

To the extent that a CER is involved in collective self-consumption, the French legislator is considering

a specific distribution network tariff for the consumers that participate in self-consumption, which

reflects the actual costs borne by the network operators.49 This tariff will need to be established by

the Energy Regulatory Commission.

The produced electricity that is not self-consumed will - if it is not sold to a third party - have to be

injected into the public distribution network and sold free of charge to the DSO to which the production

facility is connected. These injections are then assigned to the technical losses of this network.50

The law furthermore sets out several provisions to regulate the relation between a CER and the DSO.

A CER will have to declare the distribution of self-consumed production between the end-consumers

to the DSO, as well as the planned production units prior to their commissioning. 51 The DSO has the

obligation to cooperate with a CER to facilitate the transfer of energy within the community.52


The law in France on CER is a first step towards implementing the framework for REC in RED II.

The framework gives most notably shape to the right to fair, cost-reflective, transparent and non-

discriminatory network charges in article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.3 (d) juncto article 15.2 (e)

EMD by introducing a right to a specific distribution network tariff that reflect the actual cost borne by

the network operators, which will need to be determined by the Energy Regulatory Commission, as

well as the responsibility of the DSO will need to cooperate with the CER to facilitate the transfer of

energy within the community53 in the sense of article art. 16.1 (d) EMD and 22.4 (c) RED II.

The concept of CER is identical to the concept of REC in article 2 (16) RED II.

47 Art. L. 211-3-2 French Energy Code. 48 Art. 315-6 French Energy Code. 49 Art. 315-3 French Energy Code. 50 Art. 315-5 French Energy Code. 51 Art. 315-7 French Energy Code. 52 Art. 315-6 French Energy Code. 53 Art. 315-6 French Energy Code.


The tables (Table 7, Table 8) below summarize and present the comparison of the French law on CER to the EU regulations:

Table 7: Comparison legal concept in French law to EU regulation

EMD RED II French law

Name Citizen energy community Renewable energy community






Participation


Open & Voluntary



Open & voluntary

Natural persons, local authorities and SMEs whose participation does not constitute its primary commercial or professional activity




‘Effective’ control & Autonomy

Natural persons, Local authorities and SMEs whose participation does not constitute their primary economic activity


Natural persons, local authorities and SMEs whose participation does not constitute its primary commercial or professional activity


Explicitly mentioned N.S.



Those in effective control need to be located in proximity of the projects of the community




Activities Generation, distribution, supply, consumption, sharing, aggregation and storage of electricity, energy-efficiency services, EV charging-services, other energy-related services (commercial)

Generation, distribution, consumption, storage, sale, aggregation, supply and sharing of renewable energy Energy-related services (commercial)

Produce, consume, share, store and sell renewable energy


Table 8: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in French law to EU regulation


French law



YES YES No




YES No


YES No

Type of support YES

Production Allowed Allowed Allowed

Rights

Fair, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent production licensing and registration procedures

YES YES The same procedures

apply

Transparent, non-discriminatory and cost-reflective production charges

YES YES The same charges apply

Responsibilities

Financially responsible for imbalances YES N.S.


Supply Allowed Allowed Allowed

Rights

Fair, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent supply licensing and registration procedures


apply

Transparent, non-discriminatory and cost-reflective supply charges


Responsibilities

Respect the freedom to switch suppliers YES YES N.S.


Sharing





Allowed (production units held by the

community)



Rights


YES YES YES

Cost reflective, transparent and non-discriminatory network charges

YES YES Potential exemption from upstream-related

costs

Collective self-consumption Allowed Allowed (building level) Allowed (building and

block level)

Rights



costs




Rights


YES YES YES



EV charging services Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

2.1.3. Greece


Experience with energy communities is limited in Greece. The two largest, well-known and

established communities are both located on an island: Tilos54 and Sifnos.55 Inland, there are very

few examples of fully operational energy communities,56 although there are many initiatives emerging

since the introduction of the Greek law on Energy Communities, including citizen initiatives, such as

the Thessaloniki energy cooperative, and municipality initiative in Mandra, Agioi Anargyroi, Peristeri,

Fyli.

54 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/tilos-island-project-find-out-more-about-double-sustainable-energy-awards-winner. 55 http://sifnosislandcoop.gr/en/. 56 See https://www.e-ea.gr/en/general/union-of-agrinio/ for an example of a fully operational inland energy community.

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/tilos-island-project-find-out-more-about-double-sustainable-energy-awards-winner

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/tilos-island-project-find-out-more-about-double-sustainable-energy-awards-winner

http://sifnosislandcoop.gr/en/

https://www.e-ea.gr/en/general/union-of-agrinio/



The Greek law on “Energiaki Kinotita”, or ‘Energy Community’ (EC) was adopted in January 201857

and introduces a new type of civil cooperative within the wider framework of Social and Solidarity

Economy (Law 4430/2016).

The framework has a strong focus on locality, insularity, activating and enhancing technological tools,

such as energy offsetting and virtual net-metering, and provides various financial incentives and

support measures that constitute a very ambitious framework for energy communities.

The main stakeholders involved in the design of the framework the regulators, DSOs, network

organizations, civil societies, universities, and representatives of the Tilos and Sifnos energy island

cooperatives.

Legal concept - Energy community

An EC can provide the possibility for bodies of the local government, natural persons and SMEs to

set up urban for-profit and not-for-profit cooperatives in the field of energy at either the local or regional

level.

Members of an EC can be:

• natural persons with full legal capacity;

• legal entities under public law or private entities;

• first degree local government of the same region within which the energy community

headquarters or their businesses are located;

• local authority organizations of municipalities (OTAs)58 of the same region within which the

energy community headquarters or their businesses are located within the administrative

boundaries of EC’s headquarters.

The participation of companies for which energy sector constitutes their primary economic activity is

explicitly excluded. Legal entities governed by public law, first- and second-degree municipalities and

regions, as well as natural persons, may participate in more than one EC. From this provision only

private legal entities are excluded.

At least 50% plus one of the members needs to relate to the place where the EC has its headquarters.

More specifically this implies that natural persons are required to have full or limited ownership or

ownership of a property located within the District of the headquarters or to be public municipality of

this Region. Legal entities are required to have their registered office within the District of the

headquarters.

57Law nr. 4513/2018. 58 I.e. Local Authority Organizations A & B, A=municipalities B= regions.


The Greek law furthermore sets out principles of effective control and autonomy to guarantee

democratic governance:

• the principle of 1 member 1 vote, irrespective of the number of cooperative shares held;

• the mandatory consent of the Board of Directors for the transfer of a cooperative share to a

member or to a third party;

• a ceiling on the participation rate of each member in the cooperative capital of 20%, with the

exception of the OTAs which may participate in the cooperative capital up to 50% for OTAs

first-degree island regions with a population below three thousand (3,100) according to the

latest census, and 40% for the remaining OTAs.

As mentioned earlier, the law distinguishes two types of EC; non-profit and for-profit cooperatives.

Each varies in composition and minimum number of members, and the ability to distribute surpluses

(Table 9).

Table 9: Differentiated governance principles non-profit versus for-profit energy cooperatives

Non-profit cooperative For-profit cooperative

Members Minimum 5 members (legal entities and/or individuals);

Minimum 3 members (3 or 2 municipalities and/or legal entities or individuals ;

Minimum 2 members (island municipalities).

Minimum 15 members (legal entities and 50%+1 individuals);

Minimum of 10 members (island municipalities with <3,100)

The requirement of a majority participation of individuals shall be fulfilled when the EC is constituted. and throughout its duration.

Distribution of surpluses Surpluses are not distributed to members, but remain in the energy community in the form of reserves and are distributed for its purposes by decision of the general assembly;

------------------------------------------------

Surpluses hold at least ten percent (10%) for the formation of the regular reserve. Withholding is not mandatory when the amount of the reserve is at least equal to the amount of the cooperative capital.

------------------------------------------------

2% of the surpluses need to be allocated to vulnerable households. In addition, an energy community can decide to give electricity to vulnerable households, which do not need to be members of the cooperative.

Surplus distribution is permitted under certain conditions and after deduction of the regular reserve.

The potential areas of activity, their geographical scope of development, the locality criterion, participation in cooperative capital, as well as the financial incentives and support measures are the same for both types of cooperatives.



The aim of an EC is promoting innovation in the energy sector, tackling energy poverty and promoting

energy sustainability, enhancing energy self-sufficiency and safety in island municipalities, as well as

improving energy efficiency in end use locally and regionally.

The above goals are achieved through the activities of production, storage, self-consumption,

distribution and supply of energy in the fields of renewable energy, of high-efficiency co-generation of

electricity and heat (CHP), of rational use of energy, of energy efficiency, of sustainable transport, of

demand and production management, distribution and supply of energy. In addition, an EC’s activity

can extend to information, education and participation in funded projects.

The activities related to energy are very broadly defined, and include the distribution of electricity,

heating / cooling and natural gas in the region where the head office is located, demand management

to reduce the final use of electricity , representation of producers and consumers on the electricity

market, network development, management and operation of alternative fuel infrastructure,

installation and operation of desalination plants using renewable energy sources, and the provision

of energy services.

The statutes of energy community may not include activities other than those mentioned, and the

geographical limit on the scope of activity is defined as the region where the EC is located.

In relation to these activities, the law sets out a framework of financial incentives and support

measures for EC (Table 10, Table 11):59

Table 10: Financial incentives for Energy Communities in Greek law

Financial incentives

Incorporation of energy communities into the Development Law in analogy with programs funded by national or EU funds

Standard tax rate for five years

If a municipality participates, a conditional exemption from the renewable energy source tax owed to local authorities (1,7%)

Exemption from the obligation to pay the annual fee for retaining an electricity production license

Exemption from bidding procedures for projects up to 18 MW. An additional compensation of 10% from the

weighted average price obtained 3 years before the last bidding procedure for wind farms < 6 MW and for

PV installations < 1 MW, based on Ministerial Decision

Specific conditions such as preferential rates for the use of the services of the Final Shelter Agent Agency

(FOSETEK) from RE and CHP stations owned by the EC. The upper limit of the charges to Provider of Last

Resort is set equal to 10% instead of the normal 20% applicable to the rest of the renewable energy and

CHP station holders

Reduced guarantee payment of 50% for participation in the auction-based subsidy scheme for renewable

energy stations and hybrid stations

59 Heinrich Bell Foundation Thessaloniki Office, Building Energy Communities. Energy in the hands of citizens, September 2019.


Explicit exemption of members of EC from compulsory insurance contributions to EFKA (i.e. health and

retirement organizations)

Minimum supply licensing capital is reduced to € 60,000

Possibility to set reduced amounts of guarantees for the registration of energy communities in the registers

of participants under the Daily Energy Planning Transaction Contracts (HES) and electricity network

management, taking into account criteria such as population or electricity demand in the Region of energy

communities’ headquarters

Table 11: Support measures for Energy Communities in Greek law

Support measures

Specific conditions such as longer usage for the use of the services of the Final Shelter Agent Agency

(FOSETEK) from renewable energy and CHP stations owned by the energy community

Provision of special conditions for licenses granted to energy communities, pursuant to the License

Regulation no. 135 of Law 4001/2011

Priority in processing applications for connection to the grid and approval of the environmental conditions for

renewable energy sources and high-efficiency co-generation production units

Possibility of specific conditions for energy communities operating as charging infrastructure operators for

electric vehicles

For Net Metering cases the sales of surplus energy it is not excluded, if produced energy exceeds 100% of

total self-consumption (normally net-metering does not permit you to sell your excess energy produced, but

for energy communities it is allowed)

Priority in consideration of application for production license for RES, CHP and hybrid power plants from

energy communities, if they have territorial overlap and submit to the same application cycle. Transfer of

licenses for production stations exclusively owned by the EC within the same region

Possibility to install RES, CHP and hybrid stations in ownership of energy communities to cover energy needs

of their members and vulnerable consumers or citizens living below the poverty line, within the Region where

energy communities’ headquarters are located, with application virtual metering, with a maximum installed

capacity of 1MW.


Concept is open to any local entity


The Greek law on EC was adopted without the RED II and EMD in mind. Nonetheless, it gives body

to many of the abstract governance principles, and rights and privileges in the CEP.

Both in terms of geographical scope (District level) and participation criteria (any entity can

participate), the scope of the legal concept of EC is broader than for REC, but narrower than for CEC,

to which no geographical limitation is attached.

The Greek law further specifies the cooperative model as the legal organizational form, and gives

shape to principles of effective control and autonomy by introducing the principles of 1 member 1

vote, a minimum requirement of members and a cap on the amount of shares an entity can hold. In

addition, there are specific provisions specifically aimed at the involvement of municipalities and

vulnerable households, which is in line with article 22.4 (h) RED II on the positive obligation to

stimulate the involvement of public authorities, and article 22.4 (f) on the participation of vulnerable

households.

The Greek law furthermore allows an EC to exercise the same activities as envisioned for REC and

CEC, as well as some additional ones such as energy innovation, energy poverty reduction and

promoting energy sustainability. The supporting framework gives content to many of the abstract

rights and privileges in the RED II and EMD, in particular the right to fair, proportionate, non-

discriminatory and transparent procedures in article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.1 (e) EMD by easing

certain requirements around licensing and administration fees and reporting, as well as exempting

them from building permitting procedures within a Region where an installation unit owned by the

community is already permitted. In addition, the right to a support scheme that accounts for the

specificities of renewable energy communities in article 22.7 RED II is given shape by exempting

energy communities with installed capacity up to 18 MW from the bidding procedure for subsidies (=

easier access to subsidies).

The tables (Table 12, Table 13) below summarize and present the comparison of the Greek law on

EC to the EU regulations:

Table 12: Comparison legal concept in Greek law to EU regulation

EMD RED II Greek law

Name Citizen energy community


Energy community

Energy sector

Electricity sector (tech-neutral)

Renewable energy (heat + electricity)

Electricity and heat (renewable energy and high- efficiency cogeneration)

Legal form Any Any Cooperative

Participation


Open & Voluntary


Natural persons, local authorities and SMEs whose

N.S. For-profit

- Minimum 15 members (legal entities and 50%+1 individuals);

Not-for-profit

- Minimum 5 members (legal entities and/or individuals);


participation does not constitute their primary economic activity

- Minimum of 10 members (island municipalities with <3,100)

- Minimum 3 members (2 municipalities and/or legal entities or individuals ;

- Minimum 2 members (island municipalities)




‘Effective’ control

&

Autonomy


- 1 member 1 vote - one or more optional shares, with a maximum holding of 20%; - municipalities (OTAs) may participate in the capital up to 50% for first-degree island regions with a population bellow 3,100 or 40% for others - Minimum number of members

Idem


Explicitly mentioned The transfer of a cooperative share to a member or to a third party shall be effected only upon the consent of the Board of Directors



At least 50%+1 members need to be located in the District of the headquarters



For-profit cooperative: surpluses can be distributed to the members or shareholders

Non-profit cooperative Surpluses remain within the community




Energy innovation, energy poverty reduction and promoting energy sustainability, production, distribution, aggregation, sharing, storage, self-consumption, distribution and supply of energy, enhancing energy self-sufficiency and safety in island municipalities, as well as improving energy efficiency in end use locally and regionally

Energy efficiency services, EV-related services and other energy-related services are allowed


Table 13: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Greek law to EU regulation


Greek law



YES YES YES




YES No


YES

Exemption from bidding procedures for projects up

to 6 MW for wind farms and 1 MW for PV; and a

budget of 12,5 million euros managed by CRES

Type of support YES Operational and initial

investment support


Rights


YES YES Priority consideration and exemption production license within Region

where the energy communities’ HQ is located


YES YES Exemption from the obligation to pay the

annual fee for retaining an electricity production

license

Responsibilities

Financially responsible for imbalances YES V (can be delegated)

Distribution Discretion MS N.S. Allowed (restricted based

on location)

Rights

Own, establish, purchase, lease a private/public distribution network

YES YES

Autonomously manage YES YES

An agreement with the DSO YES YES

Responsibilities


Unbundling requirements YES Not specified

Regulated third party access YES

Negotiated third party access Maybe by exception YES


Rights


YES YES The same procedures apply


YES YES Minimum supply licensing

capital is reduced to €

60,000

Responsibilities

Respect the freedom to switch suppliers YES YES YES

Financially responsible for imbalances YES YES (can be delegated)

Sharing



Allowed (for the electricity produced by the production

units owned by the community)

Allowed (for the electricity produced by the production


Rights


YES YES YES


YES YES Virtual net-metering

Collective self-consumption Allowed Allowed (building

level) Allowed (building level), but N.S.

Rights


YES YES (Virtual) net-metering

Aggregation

Allowed Allowed Allowed (for the electricity produced by the production




Rights


YES YES YES (through aggregator)

Energy-efficiency services Allowed Allowed Allowed


Other energy-related services Allowed Allowed Allowed

EV charging services Allowed Allowed Allowed

2.1.4. Germany


Citizen participation in the energy transition has a strong tradition in Germany. Ownership of

renewable energy by single owners or communities dates back to the early 70s. It was estimated that

individual citizens and communities installed 34% of the total installed capacity of renewable energy

- nearly 50% of the total installed PV capacity. 25% of the total installed onshore wind energy capacity

is in hands of individual citizens or communities. Energy communities in Germany takes a variety of

legal forms. There are over 800 energy cooperatives operational in Germany (see e.g. EWS Schönau

eG,60 Isarwatt eG61 and UrStrom eG62). Other forms include private limited liability companies (see

e.g. Buzzn GmbH63), limited liability partnerships (e.g. Freiamt Windmühlen GmbH & Co KG64), and

municipal utilities; local distribution companies which are (partly) owned by municipalities (e.g. Berlin

Energie65).


In the German Renewable Energy Source Act 2017 (EEG), section 3 (15) defines the concept of

“Bürgerenergiegesellschaft”, or ‘Citizens’ Energy Company’ and links it to financial privileges in the

wind power auctions.

Legal concept – citizens’ energy company

A Citizens’ Energy Company exists out of a minimum of 10 natural persons. 51% of the voting rights

need to be held by natural persons that - prior to submission of the bid – are located in the urban or

rural district in which the onshore wind project is to be developed. In addition, no member or

shareholders of the undertaking can hold more than 10 percent of the voting rights.


The framework in Section 36g EEG for Citizens’ Energy Companies is focussed on the activity of

electricity production from wind. In relation, two privileges are formulated in order to level the playing

field for Citizens’ Energy Companies in the auction-based premium tariff scheme. The first privilege

is the reduction of the financial security deposit from 30 cent/kWh to 15 cent/kWh. Once the permit is

issued and the results of the auction published, they have 2 months to submit the second part of the

financial security deposit. The second privilege ensures a clearing price (‘pay as cleared’) instead of

60 https://www.ews-schoenau.de/. 61 https://www.isarwatt.de/. 62 https://www.urstrom.de/. 63 https://www.buzzn.net/ 64 https://www.oekostrom-freiburg.de/freiamt. 65 https://www.berlinenergie.de/


https://www.isarwatt.de/

https://www.urstrom.de/

https://www.buzzn.net/

https://www.oekostrom-freiburg.de/freiamt

https://www.berlinenergie.de/


a bid price (‘pay as bid’), which implies that the premium subsidy is set at the highest successful bid

of an auction round.66

Note that the EEG details additional privileges for Citizens’ Energy Companies in Section 36g.67

However, these are suspended until 1st June 2020, on the basis of Section 104, paragraph 8 EEG,

after the first auctions in 2017 were nearly completely won by Citizens’ Energy Companies.


The German law on renewable energy provides an explicit provision on Citizens’ Energy Companies.

The framework was adopted without the RED II and EMD in mind.

Citizens’ Energy Companies can solely operate on the electricity market to the extent that it is

generated from wind. The concept is furthermore geared towards ensuring citizen effective control

and autonomy by reserving 51% of the voting rights to citizens and introducing cap of 10% on the

amount of voting rights one actor can hold and requiring minimum number of members.

Support is limited support is limited to privileges in the form of a temporary financial security deposit

reduction and a clearing price in relation to the national wind subsidy scheme. To this extent it gives

effect to the right in article 22 (7) RED II on a support scheme that accounts for the specificities of

renewable energy communities.

The tables (Table 14, Table 15) below summarize and present the comparison of the German law on Citizens’ Energy Companies to the EU regulations:

Table 14: Comparison legal concept in German law to EU regulation

EMD RED II German law



Electricity sector (wind-based)


Participation


Open & Voluntary


Natural persons, local authorities, SMEs whose participation does not constitute their primary economic activity

Not specified At least 10 natural persons who are eligible to vote

66 Tounquet, F., De Vos, L., Abada, I., Kielichowska, I. and Lessmann, C., 'Energy Communities in the European Union', 2019. 67 For more information on these additional privileges, see Tounquet, F., De Vos, L., Abada, I., Kielichowska, I. and Lessmann, C., 'Energy Communities in the European Union', 2019.




Natural persons; Small and micro-sized enterprises; and/or Local authorities



- Minimum amount of members - no member or shareholders holds more than 10% of the voting rights

Natural persons


Explicitly mentioned 51% reservation of voting rights to natural persons



The natural persons that hold at least 51% need to have their main residence in the urban or rural district where the wind mill project is located



N.S.




Electricity production from wind

Table 15: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in German law to EU regulation


German law



YES YES No



YES No


YES

No


YES V (reduced security

deposit ; and a clearing price)

Type of support YES Operational



Rights



apply



Responsibilities


Distribution Discretion MS N.S. Allowed, but N.S.

Supply Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Sharing






Allowed, but N.S.

Consumption Allowed Allowed (building level) Allowed (building and

block level), but N.S.


Storage Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Sale Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.




2.1.5. Ireland


Most community energy initiatives in Ireland deliver energy efficiency or saving services to local

citizens and communities. In total, this has resulted in 310 communities all across Ireland.68 The

abundance of these types of activities can be partly attributed to the success of the supporting

framework developed by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI).

2.1.5.2. The Sustainable Energy Communities (SEC) Programme

The SEC programme is managed by the SEAI and is underpinned by the energy White Paper69, which

sets out government actions to engage and enable citizens and communities in (renewable) energy

projects.

68 For an overview of these initiatives, see: https://www.seai.ie/community-energy/sustainable-energy-communities/sec-map/. 69 See Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, ‘Ireland’s Transition to a Low Carbon Energy Future 2015-2030’, 2015 (White Paper).

https://www.seai.ie/community-energy/sustainable-energy-communities/sec-map/

https://www.seai.ie/community-energy/sustainable-energy-communities/sec-map/


To this aim, the SEC programme provides technical (develop energy management skills and

knowledge) and financial (dedicated funding) support to communities.

Policy concept - Sustainable energy communities

According to the SEC Handbook,70 a SEC is a partnership between public, private and community

sectors that works together in order to be energy-efficient first, and use renewable energy and smart

energy solutions second.

Besides referencing to some common characteristics of energy communities,71 the Handbook does

not limit the concept to any organizational form, geographical requirement or governance and

participation criteria.

Associated policy framework – The Sustainable Energy Community Programme

There are three phases to the SEC programme: learn, plan and do (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Overview 3-step Sustainable Energy Community Programme72

In the first phase, a community can become a member of the nation-wide SEC Network, which creates

a space for communities to engage and learn from project site visits, seminars, events, and case-

studies in order to help communities to identify and develop energy projects.

In the second phase, the community can enter into a three-year partnership with the SEAI and start

designing an Energy Master Plan. During this three-year period the community receives active

70 Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, ‘Sustainable Energy Communities Programme’, 2018. 71 These characteristics are: a mix of activities and sectors, a geographical defined area or common field of interest, strong stakeholder commitment, a defined organizational structure, a balance between energy-efficiency projects and development of renewable energy supply. See in this regard Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, ‘Sustainable Energy Communities Programme’, 2018, p. 3. 72 See Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, ‘Sustainable Energy Communities Programme’, 2018, p. 16.


support and mentoring from SEAI in order to identify energy saving opportunities and other energy-

related activities. The three-year partnership is a two-way exchange (Figure 7):

Figure 7: Overview support measures Sustainable Energy Community Programme73

In the last phase, the SEC can also apply for dedicated funding from the SEAI to help realize the

Energy Master Plan. The SEAI offers different levels of grants and supports to homeowners and

communities, depending on their financial characteristics (Figure 7). Up to €3 million was made

available to communities in the SEC network and a maximum of €200,000 grant funding is available

per application. In 2019, SEAI is supporting 57 projects, with €25.3 million being invested.74 The

community grant scheme is currently closed, but will reopen in autumn 2020.

Figure 8: Grant system Sustainable Energy Authority of Authority75

Projects are judged on the basis of their characteristics (ability to deliver, ambition, diversity of

solutions), of which the most decisive one is the extent to which the project provides community

73 Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, ‘Sustainable Energy Communities Programme’, 2018, p. 7. 74 See in this regard: https://www.seai.ie/news-and-media/communities-grant-scheme/index.xml; and https://www.seai.ie/grants/community-grants/). 75 Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, ‘Sustainable Energy Communities Programme’, 2018, p. 9.

https://www.seai.ie/news-and-media/communities-grant-scheme/index.xml

https://www.seai.ie/grants/community-grants/


benefits. It is thus also possible for community interest companies allow for participation of local

communities in project development can be classified as a SEC eligible for a grant.

Aside from the SEAI’s grant mechanism, SEC can also apply for Better Energy Communities (BEC)

programme - a competitive national capital grant programme aimed at increasing energy efficiency

standards. The initiative grants support of up to €28 million each year.

2.1.5.3. High level design paper on renewable energy support schemes (RESS)

The high level design paper76 aims to encourage participation of communities in the design of the

renewable electricity support scheme. This high level design paper is a non-binding policy-formulation

and still needs to be backed up by legislation.

The following policies and support measures are envisioned to ensure community participation in and

ownership of renewable electricity projects:

• early on financial support for feasibility and development studies and capacity building;

• mandatory community benefit fund and register;

• mandatory investment opportunities for communities living in proximity (5 km) of the RESS

project (however, if the project fails to collect community investment, it will not be punished);

• separate auction for communities that meet community-led criteria (capacity limited to 10% of

the second auction and subject to review for future auctions);

• provision of independent technical, legal, project and financial advice;

• support to guide community-led projects through the grid connection process;

• feedback loops from representative of community projects and projects developers on the

adequacy of the support measures.77


The Irish policy-framework on SEC has emerged outside of the context of the CEP.

Any actor can participate in a SEC, irrespective of their geographical location within the country, which

makes the concept considerably more broad than both REC and CEC in RED II and EMD.

The SEC Programme, as well as the policy-formulations in the high level design paper can be seen

as an extensive implementation of the indirect right of REC to tools to facilitate access to finance and

information in article 22.4 (g) RED II, as well as the right of REC to a support scheme that takes into

account the specificities of RECs in article 22.7 RED II.

76 See Government of Ireland, ‘Renewable Electricity Support Scheme (RESS). High level design’, June 2018. 77 See Government of Ireland, ‘Renewable Electricity Support Scheme (RESS). High level design’, June 2018,

pp. 17-19.


The tables (Table 16, Table 17) below summarize and present the comparison of the Irish policy framework on SEC to the EU regulations:

Table 16: Comparison legal concept in Irish policy to EU regulation

EMD RED II Irish policy


Sustainable energy community


Electricity & heat sector (renewable energy based)

Electricity & heat sector


Participation


Open & Voluntary



N.S. Any entity





&

Autonomy


N.S. Any entity





No



Community benefits




(1) Energy efficiency services;

(2) use renewable energy;

(3) implement smart energy solutions


Table 17: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Irish policy to EU regulation


Irish policy



YES YES Not defined yet

Identification/assessment of barriers YES YES


YES


YES

The SEC Programme


YES Present: Better Energy Communities and SEAI

Grant Scheme

Future: RESS that ensures community

participation and ownership

Type of support

YES Present : initial investment

Future : initial and operational

Production Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Rights


YES YES N.S.



Responsibilities


Distribution Discretion MS Maybe N.S.

Supply Allowed Allowed N.S.

Sharing






N.S.

Collective self-consumption Allowed Allowed (building level) N.S.

Aggregation Allowed Allowed N.S.


Storage Allowed Allowed Allowed, at household

level

Sale Allowed Allowed N .S.




2.1.6. Luxembourg


Besides a couple of energy cooperatives involved in distributed electricity production from solar and

wind (see e.g. ‘TM Energcoop’78 and ‘Energy Revolt’79), Luxembourg has little or no experience with

energy communities.

2.1.6.2. Draft law on energy communities

Luxembourg has a proposal law ready in the Parliament to amend the Law on the Organisation of the

Electricity Market of 1st August 2007 and introduce the concepts of collective self-consumption and

“Communauté d’Energie Renouvable” (CER) or ‘Renewable Energy Community’.80


A CER is described as a legal person that can consist out of network users who can be natural

persons, SMEs or local authorities, including municipalities. The primary purpose of a CER is to

provide environmental, economic and social benefits to its shareholders or members or the local

territory in which it operates, rather than profit-making

The network users’ injection and sampling points need to be located in the same locality, i.e.

downstream of the high and/or medium voltage electricity transformer station connected to the low-

voltage station operated by the DSO concerned, which provides the network users more flexibility to

switch around the network.

Participation in a CER is voluntary and participants have the right to leave with a notice that cannot

exceed one year.

78http://grandcentral.snj.lu/news/tm-energcoop-nouveau-projet-photovolta%C3%AFque-%C3%A0-kayl-t%C3%A9tange 79 https://www.eida.lu/en/energy-revolt. 80 The progress of the legislative process can be monitored here: https://chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/Recherche/RoleDesAffaires?action=doDocpaDetails&backto=/wps/portal/public/Accueil/Actualite&id=7266.

http://grandcentral.snj.lu/news/tm-energcoop-nouveau-projet-photovolta%C3%AFque-%C3%A0-kayl-t%C3%A9tange

http://grandcentral.snj.lu/news/tm-energcoop-nouveau-projet-photovolta%C3%AFque-%C3%A0-kayl-t%C3%A9tange

https://www.eida.lu/en/energy-revolt

https://chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/Recherche/RoleDesAffaires?action=doDocpaDetails&backto=/wps/portal/public/Accueil/Actualite&id=7266

https://chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/Recherche/RoleDesAffaires?action=doDocpaDetails&backto=/wps/portal/public/Accueil/Actualite&id=7266



The CER is allowed to produce, consume, share, store81 and sell electricity, and has access to all

relevant energy markets directly or by aggregation in a non-discriminatory manner.

The draft law enables a CER to share, within the community, the renewable energy produced by the

production units owned by the CER. The member or shareholders need to be located in the same

locality, i.e. downstream of the high and/or medium voltage electricity transformer station connected

to the low-voltage station operated by the DSO concerned. A legal entity is required in order to interact

with the grid operator to facilitate sharing of electricity amongst the members of the CER.

The allocation of the produced quantities of electricity can be done by a CER or the DSO and this

without prejudice to the network access charges, network usage charges and other charges, levies

and taxes applicable to each member of a CER. Specific local tariffs are not foreseen in the short

term, but could be introduced in the future.

In case a CER decides to make its own allocation of the produced quantities to its members, the CER

will need to send load curves to the DSO within some format and some timeframe that is yet to be

defined. The DSO will then send the virtual grid consumption load curves to the supplier of the different

participants. The CER is authorized to delegate the organization of the allocation of electrical energy

to a service provider. The service provider must be able to follow the technical and organizational

terms and conditions of the distribution model and cannot be a member of the CER. The quantities of

electrical energy taken from the network and the total quantities of electrical energy consumed and

produced individually by members of a CER need to be communicated at least every month.

Alternatively, a static and simple distribution model for the sharing of the electricity produced is used

by the DSO. The DSO will allocate quantities, create a virtual load curve and goes to the supplier for

the remaining energy that is needed from the public network. The sharing key will need to be

developed by the regulator in close consultation with the network operators of the network.

In order to operate on the local distribution network, a CER is subject to an acceptance procedure

and need to enter into an agreement with the DSO based on a standard contract to be jointly

developed by the DSOs. The agreement will need to specify:

• the identity and address of the members of the renewable energy community;

• the distribution key applied for the sharing of the energy produced. The agreement must be

adapted whenever a member or shareholder of the community renewable energy, the facilities

concerned or the distribution key change;

the facility or installations concerned.

81 Art. 8quinquies determines that each grid user is allowed to operate an electricity storage within the limits of power and capacity and according to the operating conditions to be decided by the regulator after a public consultation procedure.


The members or shareholders of a CER conclude each individually a supply contract with the supplier

of their choice for electricity taken from the public network. The sale of excess renewable electricity

and injected into the public network can be done through individual suppliers of members or

shareholders of the CER, or if the statutes so provide, via a common supplier.

A CER can also sell its excess production of renewable electricity through renewable electricity

purchase agreements, provided that it performs the function of balance manager, including the

financial aspects relating to energy balance and equilibrium, or delegate responsibility for equilibrium.


The Luxembourgian draft law on CER aims to partly transpose the RED II.

The framework is more narrow than the one provided for in RED II for REC, as it is primarily formulates

rights and responsibilities in relation to the activity of electricity sharing between network users which

are located downstream of the high and/or medium voltage electricity transformer station connected

to the low-voltage station operated by the DSO concerned. The associated rights and responsibilities

are concordantly focused on the cooperation between the DSO and the CER in order to facilitate

transfers within the community in the sense of 22.4 (c) RED II.

A CER is furthermore allowed to sell its excess production of renewable electricity through purchase

agreements in accordance with article 22.2 (a) RED II, provided that it takes on balancing

responsibilities in line with article 16.3 (c) EMD.

The concept of CER is overall characterized by a more open membership than REC in RED II, as

also SMEs whose participation does constitute their primary economic activity are allowed to

participate. In order to be involved in energy sharing, the draft law furthermore gives content to the

notion of ‘proximity’ in RED II by requiring that all of the network users’ injection and sampling points

need to be downstream of the high and/or medium voltage electricity transformer station connected

to the low-voltage station operated by the concerned DSO. This interpretation allows participants and

customers to switch around the network and for low voltage feeders to be connected to two different

medium voltage stations.

The tables (Table 18, Table 19) below summarize and present the comparison of the Luxembourg draft law on CER to the EU regulations:

Table 18: Comparison legal concept in Luxembourgian draft law to EU regulation

EMD RED II Luxembourg draft law




Heat & electricity sector (renewable energy-based)

Electricity sector (renewable energy-based and cogeneration)


Participation Structure Actors Structure Actors Structure Actors


Open & Voluntary



N.S. Natural persons, local authorities and SMEs



Natural persons, local authorities and Small and micro-sized enterprises


&

Autonomy


N.S. Natural persons, local authorities and SMEs





All of the network users’ injection and sampling points need to be located in the same locality, i.e. downstream of the high and/or medium voltage electricity transformer station connected to the low-voltage station operated by the DSO concerned



Provide benefits environmental, economic or social benefits to its shareholders or members or in favor of local territories where it operates, rather than seeking profit




Energy production, consumption, sharing, storage, sale


Table 19: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Luxembourgian draft law to EU regulation

Rights, privileges and responsibilities EMD RED II Luxembourgian draft

law



YES YES No



YES


YES

Not defined yet


YES

No

Type of support YES


Rights



apply



Responsibilities

Financially responsible for imbalances YES YES YES



Rights


YES YES Exempt from supply license within the

community



Responsibilities



Sharing




the production units


the production units





Rights


YES YES YES



Collective self-consumption Allowed Allowed (building level) Allowed (building level)

Rights


YES YES Different network charges apply

Aggregation Allowed Allowed Allowed

Storage Allowed Allowed Allowed at household

level


Rights


YES YES YES




2.1.7. The Netherlands


The Netherlands has a rich history in energy cooperatives that dates back to the late 1980s and early

1990s. Today over a hundred energy cooperatives exist in the Netherlands (see e.g. Grunneger

power,82 CoöperatieAuto,83 De Windvogel,84 and Energyport Peelland85). In addition, there are 17

energy associations and cooperatives active in the Dutch regulatory sandbox (see e.g. Schoonschip,

Villa Verademing and Kringloopgemeenschap).86

2.1.7.2. Current experimental regime

Article 7a of the Dutch Electricity Act 1998 provides the possibility for pilot community energy projects

to experiment with developments in relation to production, transport and supply of decentralized

82 https://grunnegerpower.nl/. 83 https://www.cooperatieauto.nl/. 84 https://windvogel.nl/. 85 https://www.energyportpeelland.nl/. 86 Tounquet, F., De Vos, L., Abada, I., Kielichowska, I. and Lessmann, C., 'Energy Communities in the European Union', 2019.

https://grunnegerpower.nl/

https://www.cooperatieauto.nl/

https://windvogel.nl/

https://www.energyportpeelland.nl/


generated sustainable electricity as well as grid ownership through derogation from the Dutch

Electricity Act. This regime is further implemented by the Crown decree of 28 February 2015 on

experiments on decentralized sustainable electricity generation, commonly known as the Experiments

Electricity Law - regime, which specifies which types of projects are eligible and which exemption can

be granted. In turn, these exemptions are further coupled to regulations or restrictions by the Minister

of Economic Affairs and Climate in the “openstellingsregeling”87. The stakeholders involved in the

design of the framework were regulators, DSOs, cooperatives, consumer organizations, network

organizations, local authorities, civil society, engineering companies.

From 2015 until 2018 there was a yearly opening. Exemptions were granted to 20 projects. The

applications for the regime are currently closed. A revised experiment scheme will be designed in

2019 that is likely to offer more options for exemptions from the Electricity Act and the Gas Act. The

options and approach of the new scheme are currently being updated. On Monday, April 29, the

government sent its proposal for the renewed and broadened experimentation scheme to the House

of Representatives. For the scope of this report, both the existing and emerging regulatory sandbox

regime shall be discussed.

Legal concept – Energy association or cooperative

The original experimental regime applies to certain types of community energy initiatives and under certain conditions:

• only cooperatives or associations of owners are eligible for permissions;

• DSOs, TSOs or legal persons that are (in)directly producer or supplier of electricity (larger than produced by the community energy cooperative or association) cannot not have any say in the management of the community;

• the general assembly of members of the community has control over the set-up, progress or cost distribution of the project;

• 80% or more of the customers need to be private end-users/consumers

• a maximum of 10,000 customers can be served;

• no electricity shall be supplied to non-members, unless when it is a legal person under full control of the community;

• all of the customers need to be connected to the same medium or low voltage network of the network operator to which the application relates or can be connected within six months of the granting of the exemption.88

Potential activities, rights and responsibilities

The Minister can grant an exemption from rules pertaining to tasks and responsibilities of the network

operator, tariff structures and conditions, conditions for data-processing, transparency and solvency,

measurement device requirements, invoicing and information processing for the implementation of a

project that envisions for:

87 See https://www.rvo.nl/subsidies-regelingen/experimenten-elektriciteitswet. 88 Heldeweg M., ‘Normative alignment, Institutional Resilience and Shifts in Legal Governance of the Energy

Transition’, Sustainability, 2017, pp. 28-30.

https://www.rvo.nl/subsidies-regelingen/experimenten-elektriciteitswet


• ‘Large’ Experiments: optimizing supply and demand of electricity with supply of locally generated sustainable electricity or the installation of maintenance of a part of a network, connection or device and the supply of locally generated sustainable electricity for a maximum of 10,000 customers; or

• ‘Project Nets’: the construction or maintenance of a project network and the supply of decentralized renewable electricity. A project network has a single connection to the public distribution network and is located within a geographical delimitated area or location with shared services to which maximum 500 customers are connected and which supplies primarily end-consumers.

In total a maximum 20 projects were granted per year: 10 ‘Large’ Experiments and 10 Project Nets. In case a project has been accepted and provided that the conditions in article 13 of the Crown Decree are met, the project will automatically be released from the requirements of a supply license for the supply of electricity to small end-consumers under certain conditions.

The duration of the experimental regime for each individual project is set at a maximum 10 years.

The Minister is allowed to further specify certain provisions in the “Openstellingsregeling” with regard to:

• conditions or restrictions to an exemption in order to safeguard public goals, such as transport security, security of supply, safety, environment and consumer protection;

• the maximum amount of projects allowed to apply and which period of time they can apply; or

the maximum generation capacity (e.g. in 2015 this was set at the capacity needed to generate the annual electricity consumption of all members of the association with an uncertainty margin of 5%)89.

Recent study performed by Lammers and Diestelmeier90 indicates that in reality five out of nine of the

currently approved pilot projects are actually controlled by project developers, a solar PV company, a

research centre and a real estate company (which have become members of the associations). In

addition, DSOs, energy companies, brokers and aggregators appear to play an important role as

partners. The question rises whether the experimental regime is either too restrictive and needs to be

opened up to other types of actors; or needs to be better secured in order to avoid outside actors

taking the lead in these community energy initiatives.

On the other hand, other projects, in particular Schoonschip, have shown that the Experiments

Electricity Law – regime indeed created a framework, enabling citizens to set up local energy

communities, which jointly produce, store and exchange electricity and operate their own local grids.

As such the regime fulfilled and fulfils its purpose to ‘examine whether the exemptions from the

electricity law would result in (i) increased application of renewable energy or combined heat and

power at local level (ii) increased efficiency in the use of the available infrastructure (iii) increased

engagement of energy consumers with their energy supply.

89 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2015-9908.html. 90 Lammers, I.; Diestelmeier, L. ‘Experimenting with Law and Governance for Decentralized Electricity Systems: Adjusting Regulation to Reality?’, Sustainability 2017, 9, 212.

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2015-9908.html


2.1.7.3. Future regime: regulatory sandbox for community energy cooperatives or associations

It appears that the Dutch regulator has decided to open up the next round of the experimental regime

to more types of actors. The old scheme is being expanded with more goals and possible

partnerships, which will allow for more space for local experiments. The most apparent changes are:91

• expansion from the electricity market to the Gas market. The Minister of Economic Affairs and

Climate will be competent to allow exemptions from the Gas act;

• all legal persons can now apply for an exemption, also in cooperation. This means that network

operators, suppliers and aggregators can also submit or participate in an application;

• local experiments can now have more goals, including sustainable energy generation, energy

efficient grid use, energy saving, CO2 emissions reduction, increase practical knowledge about

market models and tariff regulation systems.

The duties and powers of the minister and supervisors remain unchanged, as do the definitions.92


The Dutch’s regulatory sandbox for energy cooperatives and associations was created without the

RED II and EMD in mind.

The legal conceptualization is limited to cooperatives and associations who can only operate on the

electricity sector and needs to be renewable energy based. Participation to the cooperative or

association is limited, as 80% of the participants need to be private end-consumers. The autonomy

of the initiatives are furthermore guaranteed through an explicit prohibition for DSOs, TSOs or legal

persons that are (in)directly producer or supplier of electricity to have any say in the management of

the association or cooperative. Furthermore, the principle of effective control is further implemented

through the obligation that the general assembly of members need to have control over the set-up,

progress or cost distribution of the project.

The experimental regime focuses primarily on sustainable energy generation and energy efficient grid

use, which implies that energy associations or cooperatives can possibly be allowed operate their

own private community network. Under the experimental regime the Minister can furthermore grant

an exemption from rules pertaining to tasks and responsibilities of the network operator, tariff

structures and conditions, conditions for data-processing, transparency and solvency, measurement

device requirements, invoicing and information processing. Notably the possible exemption from

normal grid tariffs appears to be an implementation of the right to (fair), cost-reflective, transparent

and non-discriminatory network charges article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.1 (e) EMD. In addition,

there is an automatic exemption for approved projects from supply license requirements for supply to

91 See ‘Ontwerpbesluit houdende nadere regels voor het bij wege van experiment afwijken van de Elektriciteitswet 1998 of de Gaswet’ (https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=efa3e89b-decf-49d9-bc8f-b1454f919187&title=Besluit%20houdende%20nadere%20regels%20voor%20het%20bij%20wege%20van%20experiment%20afwijken%20van%20de%20Elektriciteitswet%201998%20of%20de%20Gaswet%20%28Besluit%20experimenten%20Elektriciteitswet%201998%20en%20Gaswet%29.pdf). 92 See https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2019Z08804&did=2019D17921.

https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=efa3e89b-decf-49d9-bc8f-b1454f919187&title=Besluit%20houdende%20nadere%20regels%20voor%20het%20bij%20wege%20van%20experiment%20afwijken%20van%20de%20Elektriciteitswet%201998%20of%20de%20Gaswet%20%28Besluit%20experimenten%20Elektriciteitswet%201998%20en%20Gaswet%29.pdf





https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2019Z08804&did=2019D17921


small end consumer, which can be considered an implementation of the right to non-discriminatory,

fair, proportionate and transparent procedures formulated in those same articles.

The tables (Table 20, Table 21) below summarize and present the comparison of the Dutch

experimental regulation on Energy Associations and Cooperatives to the EU regulations:

Table 20: Comparison legal concept in Dutch regulation to EU regulation

EMD RED II Dutch regulation


Energy association or cooperative



Present: Electricity sector

Future: electricity + gas sector

Legal form Any Any Now: Association or Cooperative

Future: Any entity

Participation


Open & Voluntary



Not open & voluntary

Present 80% private actors

Future Any entity





&

Autonomy


General assembly has control over set-up, progress or cost-distribution

Any entity, except DSOs, TSOs or legal persons that (in)directly are producer or supplier of electricity


Explicitly mentioned DSOs, TSOs or legal persons that are (in)directly producer or supplier of electricity do not have any say in the management



Present

All of the customers need to be connected to the same

Future

No


medium or low voltage network of the network operator to which the application relates or can be connected within six months of the granting of the exemption



N.S.

Activities Generation, distribution, supply, consumption, sharing, aggregation and storage of electricity, energy-efficiency services, EV charging-services, other energy-related services



Present

Local production, distribution, sharing, storage, collective self-consumption

Future

Energy saving included

Table 21: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Dutch regulation to EU regulation


Dutch regulation



YES YES

YES, through project meetings



YES YES (this is the purpose of the

experimental regime)


YES

No


YES

No

Type of support YES


Rights



apply



Responsibilities


Financially responsible for imbalances YES YES (can be

delegated)

Distribution Discretion MS N.S. Allowed (restricted

based on location)

Rights

Own, establish, purchase, lease a private/public distribution network

Discretion MS YES (for private local micro-grids)

Autonomously manage Discretion MS YES (for private local micro-grids)

An agreement with the DSO YES (if distribution is allowed)

YES

Responsibilities

Unbundling requirements YES (if distribution is allowed)

No (exempted from unbundling)

Regulated third party access Discretion MS YES

Negotiated third party access Discretion MS No


Rights


YES YES Automatic exemption supply license

requirement for supply to small end-

consumers if project is accepted



Responsibilities



Sharing






Allowed, (for the electricity produced by

the production units owned by the

community or its members)

Rights


YES YES YES


YES YES YES (deviation from normal network

charges possible)

Collective self-consumption Allowed Allowed (building level) Allowed (building and

block level)


Rights


YES V (deviation from normal network

charges possible)



Sale Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.




2.1.8. Portugal


Portugal has a tradition of energy cooperatives owning and managing distribution grids. They operate in individual municipalities and autonomous regions, such as Azores and Madeira. In addition, there is one known energy cooperative involved in electricity production from solar energy, called ‘Coopernico’.93


Portugal has recently adopted the Decree-Law No. 162/2019 on October 25th 2019 that amends

Decree-Law No. 153/2014 of 20th October 2014 on Decentralized Electricity Generation. The Decree-

Law aims to promote and facilitate self-consumption and renewable energy communities by removing

obstacles and creating conditions for the establishment of innovative solutions, both economically and

socially, based on technological opportunities.

It appears the Law-Decree implements all of the provisions for REC in RED II and creates a space

for “Comunidade de Energia Renovável” or ‘Renewable energy community’ under close monitoring

of the Directorate General for Energy and Geology until 31 December 2020 in order to identify how to

further implement the provisions in the RED II.

For the design of this legal framework, universities, the regulator, DSOs, local authorities, civil society,

consumer organizations, as well as the Autonomous Region of the Azores, the Association National

Council of Portuguese Municipalities and the National Data Protection Commission were heard.


A “Comunidade de Energia Renovável” (CER) or ‘Renewable energy community’ is described as a

legal person that can both be for profit or not for profit. The main purpose of a CER is, however, to

93 https://www.coopernico.org/.

https://www.coopernico.org/


provide its member or the location where it operates environmental, economic and social benefits,

rather than financial profits.

Participation to a CER is open and voluntary and all kinds of natural or legal public or private entities

may join and exercise effective control, including large (energy) companies. The Decree-Law,

however, does favor in particular SMEs, municipalities and domestic consumers, endowing the

domestic consumer with a right to participate which may not be subject to conditions or to unjustified

or discriminatory procedures preventing participation in a CER. 94 The principle of autonomy is also

introduced vis-à-vis the members and partners of a CER.

Members or participants need to be located in close proximity of the energy projects or develop

activities related to the respective energy projects which are owned and developed by a CER. The

Directorate General for Energy and Geology (DGEG) will decide whether the proximity aspect is

present on a case by case basis, at least until December 2020.95 In its judgement, the DGEG shall

take into consideration the physical and geographical continuity of the project and its prosumers or

CER participants. In addition, it can also take into account the processing station to which the project

is linked, the different voltage levels associated with the projects, and any other technical or regulatory

element.


A CER is allowed to produce, consume, share96, store and sell electricity generated from production

units owned by the community, including through renewable electricity purchase agreements. A CER

has access to all relevant energy markets directly or by aggregation in a non-discriminatory way.

The Decree-Law further delegates several responsibilities to the DGEG and the Energy Sector

Regulatory Authority (ESRA).

The DGEG will have to make an assessment of the obstacles for and potential of CERs within two

years after the entry into force of this Decree-Law and every three years thereafter by publishing a

report on their website. Following this assessment, the DGEG will have to design a framework that

promotes and facilitates the development of CERs, in particular with a view to ensure:

• the removal of unjustified regulatory and administrative obstacles which hinder the constitution

of RECs

• the cooperation of the network operator to facilitate energy transfers within the CER in cases

where the production facilities for self-consumption are connected to the public grid

• fair, proportionate and transparent procedures, including the registration and licensing

procedure; as well as cost-based network charges, and other applicable charges, fees and

taxes, ensuring that they contribute appropriately, fair and balanced approach to sharing the

94 Art. 2 (j) Decree-Law on CER. 95 Art. 5, §2 Decree-Law on CER. 96 A CER is allowed to share, within the community, the renewable energy produced by the production units owned by the community.


overall costs of the system, in line with an analysis of the cost-effective distribution of energy

sources developed by competent national authorities;

• non-discriminatory treatment as regards their activities, rights and obligations as final

consumers, self-consumers, suppliers electricity, distribution system operators or other market

participants;

• that CERs can provide energy or aggregation services or other energy services

• participation in RECs is accessible to all consumers, including families low-income or

vulnerable;

• the availability of instruments that facilitate the access to finance and information;

• regulatory and capacity-building support for public authorities to facilitate and constitution of

RECs and to assist authorities to participate directly in them;

• fair and non-discriminatory treatment consumers participating in the CER.

Furthermore, the Law-Decree determines that the Government should take into account the

specificities of CERs in the design and approving of support schemes in order to create a level playing

field for them.

The ESRA is given the responsibility to assess the feasibility of local grid tariffs for a CER in case it

makes use of the local network to transfer electricity for self-consumption purposes.97 The network

access charges will also be determined and established in the tariff regulation, to be approved by

ESRA by 31 December 2020.

The Law-Decree proposes the application of the network charges deducted by:

• the charges related to the use of the transmission network when there is no injection of energy

from the transmission network;

• part of the charges related to the use of the transmission network when there is inversion of

energy flow between the distribution and transmission network.

The charges related to costs of energy policy, sustainability and economic interest may also be

partially or totally deducted by means of the Government member responsible for energy and to be

approved by September 15 of each year. The proportion to be deducted shall take into account the

benefits of CERs to the electricity system, as well as the financial implications for other customers.

The Decree-Law also formulates some direct rights and responsibilities, such as balancing

responsibilities for deviations caused to the national electricity city by a CER. This balancing

responsibility can be delegated to a market participant or its designated representative.

The right to fair, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent procedures in article 22.4 (d) RED

II is directly applied to the production procedures for CER and has resulted in several exemptions

97 Art. 18 Decree-Law on CER.


from communication, registration, certification and licensing responsibilities in accordance with

installed capacity.

More specifically, Article 3 of the Law-Decree provides the following exemptions:

• production units for self-consumption with installed power of 350 W or less are not subject to

prior control;

• production units for self-consumption with installed power greater than 350 W and equal to or

less than 30 kW are subject to prior communication;

• production units for self-consumption with an installed power greater than 30 kW and less than

or equal to 1 MW is subject to the prior registration for the installation and the operating

certificate;

• in case the registration request for the production units for self-consumption foresees the

possibility of power injection in the utility power grid, the operator’s approval is mandatory98;

• production units for self-consumption with an installed capacity exceeding 1 MW are subject

to licensing for production and operation.99

Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, in the case of UPAC for which provision is made possibility

of injection in the public network greater than 1 MVA, the beginning of the procedure to obtain

electricity generation license depends on the prior allocation of the public network. The member of

the Government responsible for Energy can define further specific requirements with regard to CERs.


The Decree-Law in Portugal copies the framework for REC in RED II, and delegates the further

implementation of most of the provisions to executive government agencies.

The DGEG is in charge of implementing most of the rights and privileges in article 22.4 RED II. The

design of the support scheme that takes into account the specificities of a CER in the sense of article

22.7 RED II is delegated to the national Government. The Regulator has the responsibility to look at

the feasibility of local grid tariffs in case of transfer of electricity through the local network for the

purpose of collective self-consumption in line with the right to fair, cost-reflective, transparent and

non-discriminatory network charges 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.3 (d) juncto article 15.2 (e) EMD.

In addition, the Law-Decree formulates several detailed exemptions from production registration and

licensing procedures, which can be seen as a direct implementation of the right to fair, proportionate,

non-discriminatory and transparent procedures in article 22.4 (d) RED II.

The concept of CER is much broader than a REC in the sense of article 2 (16) RED II, as it is open

to all kinds of entities, provided that they are located in close proximity of the energy projects or

98 Referred to in paragraph c) of paragraph 2 of article 27-B of the Decree-Law No. 172/2006, of 23 August.

99 Pursuant to Articles 8 et seq. of Decree-Law No 172/2006 of August 23, in its current wording.


develop activities related to the respective energy projects which are owned and developed by the

renewable energy community.

The tables (Table 22, Table 23) below summarize and present the comparison of the Portuguese law on CER to the EU regulations:

Table 22: Comparison legal concept in Portuguese law to EU regulation

EMD RED II Portuguese law




Heat and electricity sector (renewable energy-based)

Electricity sector (renewable energy-based)


Participation


Open & Voluntary



Open & voluntary

Any entity





&

Autonomy

Natural persons, Local authorities and SMEs whose participation does not constitute their primary economic activity


Any entity


Explicitly mentioned Explicitly mentioned vis-à-vis internal interest participants and external interest



Participants need to be located in proximity to the energy projects or develop activities related to the respective energy projects which are owned and developed by the community



Social, economic and environmental benefits for members/shareholders or local area where it operates, rather than financial profits





Produce, consume, share, store and sell renewable energy-based electricity

Table 23: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Portuguese law to EU regulation


Portuguese law



YES YES YES

Identification/assessment of barriers YES YES


YES


YES V (needs to be

specified by DGEG)


YES V (needs to be

specified by DGEG)

Type of support YES Operation (local grid

tariffs)


Rights


YES YES Exemption from licensing and/or

registration procedures for production units

with installed capacity of < 1MW100



Responsibilities


Distribution Discretion MS N.S. N.S.

Supply Allowed Allowed Allowed (but limited by

proximity aspect)

Rights

100 Note that this is a simplification. Please see the proceeding paragraphs for more details on production registration and license requirements for CERs.




apply



Responsibilities


Financially responsible for imbalances YES YES (can be

delegated)

Sharing








Rights


YES YES YES



and energy policy-related costs

Collective self-consumption Allowed Allowed (building level) From January 2020

Rights



costs

Aggregation Allowed Allowed Allowed



Rights


YES YES YES





2.1.9. Slovenia


Energy communities are not common in Slovenia. There are two known energy cooperatives active;

Krajcarca in Gorensjka and Zadruga Soncnih Elektrarn Slovenije, and some other decentralized

renewable energy projects in which local communities are engaged.101 In Nova Gorica and Luce,

energy community projects are currently being set up.


Slovenia has recently adopted a new By-Law on the Self-supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy

Sources that entered into force on the 1st May 2019. The By-Law is an enforcement of the first

paragraph of Article 314 and Article 315 of the Energy Act and introduces the concept of ‘Renewable

Energy Source Community’ (RESC). The main actors involved in the design of the framework were

regulators, cooperatives and consumer organizations. The By-Law promotes both the activity of

individual as well as collective self-consumption.

Legal concept – Renewable energy source community

A RESC is defined as jointly acting final consumers behind the same LV transformer station that are engaged in collective self-consumption. A legal entity is not required, but is allowed to be established.

Any type entity is allowed to participate in a RESC. However, a third party power plant owner is not allowed to have effective control over the RESC.

In order to benefit from the virtual net-metering scheme, participants in a RESC need to consume electricity through two or more metering points that are connected to a low-voltage network of the same transformer station as the production unit.


The By-Law views a RESC as a form collective self-consumption, which is formed by customers in

buildings (houses) and/or dwellings that consume self-produced electricity via two or more measuring

points that are connected to the network of the same LV transformer station as the production unit

used for self-consumption purposes.

All participants are obliged to share the produced electricity amongst them, and match it to their

consumption profiles. The electricity shares allocated to the different consumers’ portfolio’s in a RESC

should match the anticipated production. If, at the end of the accounting period, the amount of

electricity delivered (in kWh) by the customer is greater than the amount of electricity received (in

kWh), the customer shall hand over the surplus electricity to his or her supplier. A RESC is exempted

from the supply license requirement for electricity that is collectively consumed and shared by its

members or shareholders behind the same low-voltage transformer station.

101 See http://energise-project.eu/node/1229

http://zses.si/

http://energise-project.eu/node/1229


In case of excess electricity, the owner of the production unit cannot acquire the status of producer

and sell the generated electricity to the market. The excess electricity goes to the external supplier

and is directly fed into the public grid. The supplier (depending on the agreement between supplier

and consumer) then pays for this energy according to the contractual price. The payment can take

the form of a discount on the account of the following year. Each participant in a RESC can choose

to have its own electricity supplier. The agreed upon shares will then have to be communicated to the

DSO to calculate the consumption data that needs to be applied on the electricity bill by each supplier.

The production unit does not have to be in ownership of the community members or shareholders,102

needs to be connected to a sperate measuring point, located behind the same low-voltage transformer

station, and cannot be (or have been) included in a support scheme for the production of electricity

from renewable energy sources and in high-efficiency cogeneration. The maximum installed capacity

of the production unit may not exceed 80% of the sum of the connection capacities of the individual

measuring points in the community. The balancing responsibility is transferred to the supplier.

An energy storage device is also allowed to be connected to the installation or the network to which

the self-consumption unit is connected. The participants of a RESC then have to agree in advance on

the exact shares of electricity distributed among them. The sum of shares should equal 100% of

estimated electricity production. The distribution model can be modified, but is subject to prior

communication to the DSO.


The new By-Law in Slovenia was not an intentional implementation of the CEP, although it is

considered an important first step.

The focuses on Renewable Energy Communities as a form of collective self-consumption. The

associated rights, privileges and responsibilities are consequently aimed at regulating this particular

type of activity. This renders the scope of the Slovenian framework considerably narrower than for

REC and CEC under the CEP.

In terms of participation criteria, the concept of RESC is more broadly defined than a CEC and REC,

since any entity can participate. However, the geographical limitation will be more strict, as all of the

participants need to be located behind the same transformer station for the purpose of collective self-

consumption.

The tables (Table 24, Table 25) below summarize and present the comparison of the Slovenian regulation on RESC to the EU regulations:

102 The production unit must meet the technical requirements as laid down in the regulation governing the

technical requirements for the safe and proper operation of self-care devices.


Table 24: Comparison legal concept in Slovenian By-Law to EU regulation

EMD RED II Slovenian By-Law



Electricity sector (renewable energy-based)


Participation


Open & Voluntary



N.S. Any entity that is a final-customer located behind the same LV transformer station and a third party power plant owner.





&

Autonomy


N.S. Final-customers being members


Explicitly mentioned A third party power plant owner cannot exercise effective control



Consumers need to be connected to a low-voltage network of the same transformer station as a self-supply device



N.S.




Collective self-consumption in different dwellings


Table 25: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Slovenian By-Law to EU regulation


Slovenian By-Law



YES YES No




YES No


YES

Eco Fund provides small grants to collective self-consumption

communities under strict conditions)

Type of support YES


Rights



apply



Responsibilities

Financially responsible for imbalances YES No (external supplier is

responsible)


Supply Allowed Allowed N.S.

Sharing






Allowed (production units do not have to be


Rights


YES YES YES


YES YES Virtual net-metering


Collective self-consumption

Allowed Allowed (building level) Allowed (building and block level)

Rights


YES YES (Virtual) net-metering

Aggregation Allowed Allowed N.S.


Sale

Allowed Allowed Not allowed to sell excess electricity by a

power plant owner. Excess of electricity is

transferred to the community member

supplier

Energy-efficiency services Allowed Allowed N.S.

Other energy-related services Allowed Allowed N.S.

EV charging services Allowed Allowed N.S.

2.2. Intermediate statement on national situations for energy communities in the EU

This report provided an overview of existing and emerging legal and policy developments with regard

to energy communities in the EU.

Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland have relatively ‘older’ and more experienced legal frameworks

which focus on one particular activity, such as energy production or providing energy efficiency

services. Slovenia, Luxembourg, France and Belgium (Wallonia) have more recently introduced a

legal framework for ‘Renewable Energy communities’ in the context of collective self-consumption or

energy sharing. Portugal is the first MS to fully implement the RED II. Finally, Greece has set out a



Despite these differences, each of the legal and policy frameworks have presented a variety of ways

to interpret and implement the rights, privileges and responsibilities in article 16 EMD and article 22

RED II. In particular, the following rights were given further shape:

• the right to a customized support scheme in article 22.7 RED II in Germany (temporarily

reduced financial security deposit), Greece (exemption from bidding procedures for projects

up to 18 MW is granted) and Ireland (separate auction procedure is being considered for

community-led projects);

• the indirect right to tools to facilitate access to information and financing in article 22.4 (g)

RED II in Ireland (Sustainable Energy Communities Programme);


• the right to right to fair, cost-reflective, transparent and non-discriminatory network charges in

article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.3 (d) juncto article 15.2 (e) EMD by considering local grid

tariff in Belgium (Wallonia), France, Portugal, and the Netherlands;

• the right to cooperation with the DSO in order to transfers within the community in the sense

of art. 16.1 (d) EMD and 22.4 (c) RED II in Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Belgium (Wallonia);

• the right to sell its excess production of renewable electricity through purchase agreements

in accordance with article 22.2 (a) RED II in Luxembourg, France and Portugal;

• the right to fair, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent procedures in article 22.4

(d) RED II and article 16.1 (e) EMD in Greece and Portugal.

In addition, different implementation approaches to the principles of ‘proximity’, ‘effective control’,

‘autonomy’ and purpose in article 2 (11) EMD and REC in article 2 (16) RED could be observed in

Germany, Greece, Belgium (Wallonia) and the Netherlands.

An overview of the different national approaches to the implementation of the governance principles

in the definition of CEC in article 2 (11) EMD and REC in article 2 (16) RED is provided in sub-section

2.2.1. An overview of the approaches to the rights, privileges and responsibilities in article 16 EMD

and article 22 RED II is given in sub-section 2.2.2.


2.2.1. Overview of emerging and existing national legal concepts and associated rights, privileges and responsibilities

To read the table:

• N.S.: not specified

Table 26: Overview of emerging and existing legal concepts for Energy Communities in the context of the Clean Energy Package

Countries

PT FR

SI

NL BE (WA)

EL

DE LU IR

Name Renewable energy

community

Renewable energy

community

Renewable energy source

community

Energy cooperative or

association

Renewable energy

community

Energy community

Citizens’ energy

company

Renewable energy

community

Sustainable energy

community

Energy sector Heat and electricity

sector (RE based)

Heat and electricity

sector (RE based)

Electricity sector (RE)

Electricity sector Electricity sector (RE and quality cogeneration)

Electricity and heat sector

(RE and high efficient

cogeneration)

Electricity sector (wind-

based)

Electricity sector (RE and cogeneration)

Electricity and heat

sector

Legal entity Yes, any Yes, any Yes, any Yes, cooperative or association

Yes, any Yes, cooperative

Yes, any Yes Not required

Participation structure Open & voluntary

Open & voluntary

Open & voluntary

Voluntary N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.

Actors allowed to participate

Any entity Natural person, local authority and SMEs whose participation

does not constitute their

primary commercial or professional

activity

Any entity 80% private actors

Natural person, local authority

and SMEs whose

participation does not

constitute their primary

economic activity

Dependent on actors involved in whether for-profit or not-

for-profit cooperative

At least 10 natural

persons who are eligible to

vote

Natural persons, local authorities and

SMEs

Any entity


Countries

PT FR

SI

NL BE (WA)

EL

DE LU IR

Control Effective control

Effective control

N.S. General assembly has

control over set-up, progress or cost-distribution

Left to the discretion of the

community in the first place. However, the

government may decide to

formulate a minimum set of requirements with regard to

‘effective control

- 1 member 1 vote;

- one or more optional

shares, with a maximum holding of

20%;

- municipalities (OTAs) may participate in the capital up

to 50% for first-degree

island regions with a

population bellow 3,100 or 40% for

others;

- minimum number of members

- Minimum amount of members;

- no members or

shareholders can hold more than 10% of the voting

rights

- 51% reservation

voting rights to natural persons

N.S. N.S.

Actors allowed to be in control

Any entity Natural person, local authority and SMEs whose participation

does not constitute their

primary commercial or professional

activity – located in

proximity of

Any entity 80% private actors

Natural person, local authority

and SMEs whose

participation does not

constitute their primary

economic activity

Dependent on actors involved in whether for-profit or not-

for-profit cooperative

Natural persons

Natural persons, local authorities and

SMEs

N.S.


Countries

PT FR

SI

NL BE (WA)

EL

DE LU IR

the projects of the community

Autonomy Explicitly mentioned vis-à-vis internal

interest participants and external

interest

N.S. N.S. Yes, DSOs, TSOs or legal

persons that are (in)directly producer or supplier of

electricity do not have any say in

the management

Left to the discretion of the

community in the first place. However; the

government may decide to

formulate a minimum set of requirements with regard to

‘autonomy’

The transfer of a cooperative

share to a member or to a third party

shall be effected only

upon the consent of the

Board of Directors

51%

reservation

voting rights to

natural

persons

N.S. N.S.


Participants need to be located in

proximity to the energy projects or

develop activities

related to the respective

energy projects which are owned and developed by

the community

Those in control need to be located in proximity of

the projects of the community

Consumers need to be

connected to a low-voltage

network of the same

transformer station as the

production unit

All of the customers need to be connected

to the same medium or low voltage network of the network

operator to which the

application relates or can be connected within

six months of the granting of the exemption

Participants need to be

located within local perimeter where it carries out its activities

(i.e. an area whose

connection points are

located downstream of

one or more medium and/or

low voltage public

transformer stations)

At least 50%+1 members need to be located in the District

of the headquarters

The natural persons that hold at least 51% need to

have their main

residence in the urban or rural district

where the wind mill project is

located

All of the network users’ injection and

sampling points need to be located in

the same locality, i.e.

downstream of the high and/or

medium voltage

electricity transformer

station connected to

the low-voltage station

No


Countries

PT FR

SI

NL BE (WA)

EL

DE LU IR

operated by the DSO

concerned

Purpose Provide social, economic and environmental

benefits for members/shar

eholders or local area where it

operates, rather than

financial profits

Social, economic and environmental

benefits for members/shareholders or the

local area in which it

operates

N.S. N.S. Provide environmental,

social and economic

benefits at the local level by synchronizing and optimizing

of electricity flows

Dependent on whether for-profit or not-

for-profit cooperative, profit can be distributed to members or

needs to stay within the

community

N.S. Provide benefits

environmental, economic or

social benefits to its

shareholders or members or in favor of local

territories where it

operates, rather than

seeking profit

Community benefits


Overview of emerging and existing national rights, privileges and responsibilitiesTo read the table:

• N.S.: not specified

Table 27: Overview of emerging and existing rights, privileges and responsibilities for Energy Communities in the context of the Clean Energy Package

Countries PT FR

SI

NL BE (WA)

EL

DE LU IR

CEP-related Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No

Legal act Electricity law-decree

Renewable energy law

Electricity regulation

Electricity regulation

Electricity law-decree

Company law

Renewable energy law

Electricity law Policy papers

Name Renewable

Energy

Community

Renewable

Energy

Community

Renewable

Energy

Source

Community

Energy

Association

or

Cooperative

Renewable

Energy

Community

Energy

Community

Citizens’

Energy

Company

Renewable

Energy

Community

Sustainable

Energy

Community

Sector

General rights


YES

YES

Identification/assessment of barriers Has started Has started Has started Has started Has started Has started Has started Has started Has started


YES

YES

Customized support scheme YES

In the making

YES YES In the making


Type of support Operational

Operational Initial + operational

Operational Initial + operational

Production Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed

Rights

Different procedures (incl. reduced financial requirements, administrative burdens)

YES

YES

Responsibilities

Financially responsible for imbalances YES (can be delegated)

N.S. No N.S. YES (can be delegated)

N.S. N.S. YES (can be delegated)

N.S.

Distribution N.S., but possible

Not allowed Not allowed Allowed by derogation

Not allowed Allowed N.S., but possible

Not allowed N.S.

Responsibilities

Unbundling requirements YES

YES YES

Regulated/negotiated third party access Regulated

N.S.

Negotiated Regulated

Supply Allowed Allowed N.S. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed, but N.S.

N.S.

Rights

Different procedures (incl. reduced financial requirements, administrative burdens)

YES

(for self-consumed

RE within the community)

YES

(for self-consumed electricity within the

community)

YES

(for electricity supply to

small consumers)

YES


community)

YES

(reduction min. supply

licensing capital)

YES


community)

Responsibilities

Respect the freedom to switch suppliers YES N.S. YES YES YES YES N.S. YES N.S.


Financially responsible for imbalances YES (can be delegated)

YES (can be delegated)

No N.S. YES (can be delegated)

N.S. N.S. YES (can be delegated)

N.S.

Sharing Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed N.S.

Rights


YES YES YES N.S. YES YES N.S. YES N.S.

Different network charges Potential local grid tariffs)

Potential local grid

tariffs)

YES (Virtual net-metering)


tariffs)


tariffs)

YES (Virtual net-metering)

N.S. No N.S.

Collective self-consumption From January 2020

Allowed (building and block level

Allowed (building and block level)

Allowed (building level and

postal code area)



Allowed (building and block

level)

Allowed (building level)

N.S.

Rights

Different network charges No YES (building

level)

YES (net-metering)

YES (building level and

postal code area)

YES (building

level)

YES ((Virtual) net-

metering)

YES (building

level)

YES (building level)

N.S.

Aggregation Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

N.S. Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed Allowed, but N.S.


Storage Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed (household

level)

Allowed, but N.S.

(household level)

Sales Allowed Allowed Not allowed to sell excess

electricity without

Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed Allowed Allowed, but N.S.



supply license

Rights


YES YES YES N.S. N.S. YES (through

aggregator)

N.S. YES N.S.

Energy-efficiency services Allowed Allowed, but N.S.


Allowed, but N.S.


Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed

EV charging services Allowed Allowed, but N.S.


Allowed, but N.S.


Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed

Other commercial energy-related services



Allowed, but N.S.


Allowed, but N.S.

Allowed


Annex 3. Examples of Energy Communities in the EU In Annex 3, the first section (3.1.) highlights and analyses 18 specific cases of energy communities in

light of the governance principles in the definitions for REC and CEC in RED II and EMD. The second

section (3.2.) looks at four of these cases in more detail, focusing in particular on the governance

structure, key actions drivers and institutional barriers in order to inform whether existing enabling

legal frameworks for energy communities are proportionate, non-discriminatory and fair.

3.1. Classification of Energy Communities as Renewable or Citizen Energy Communities

The following section provides an overview of initiatives that label themselves or have been labelled

by others as ‘community energy’ and classifies them as either a REC or CEC. The provided

information and classification are based on a review of their statutes and websites

The most important aspects for classification are the participation and organizational structure, the

ownership structure, the activities carried out with regards to energy and the main purpose of the

energy community.

3.1.1. Participation structure

Both a REC and CEC require open and voluntary participation in the entity. In the table below we

indicate for the listed cases the organization (in the form of legal entity) and the participation structure,

whereby we indicate the participation which potentially conflict with EU regulation on energy

communities in blue.

Table 28: Participation structures Energy Communities

Name Legal entity Participation structure and potential participants

Amsterdam-zuid (Schoonschip)

Association of co-owners

Open for owners of the boats (max. 46 households)

Freiamt Windmühlen GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG

Limited liability partnership

Open for inhabitants of Freiamt and neighbouring municipalities

Thermo Bello

Cooperative • Open to residents and companies in direct environment of EVA-

Lanxmeer and the residents association EVA-Lanxmeer (BEL) (250

EUR share to become a member)

• Voluntary (members can leave whenever they like)

Ecopower Cooperative

• Open to all natural or legal persons, regardless of their location (250

EUR share to become a member)

• Partly voluntary (a shareholders can only leave Ecopower in the 6th year

after joining)

Amelander Energie Coöperatie

Cooperative

• Open to all natural or legal persons with a socio-economic connection

with Ameland (50 EUR share to become a member)

• Voluntary (only possible at the end of the financial year, subject to a

notice period of at least two months)

http://schoonschipamsterdam.org/






http://www.thermobello.nl/

https://www.ecopower.be/





Name Legal entity Participation structure and potential participants

Middelgrundens Vindmøllelaug

Private partnership Open to natural and legal persons.

EWS Schönau Cooperative

• Open to companies and citizens who are customers of subsidiaries and

households of children and grandchildren of customers (minimum 5 x

100 EUR shares to become a member)

• Partly voluntary (after a 3-year cancellation period, membership can be

terminated at the end of the financial year)

Som Energia Cooperative Open (100 EUR share to become a member)

Retenergie Cooperative Open to companies and citizens (50 EUR share to become a member)

Berlin Energie

Municipal utility company

Closed. However, there are direct participation mechanisms for local residents (e.g. public meetings, documents made available and a steering committee with representatives of the municipal council and elected citizens)

Energieprojekt Zurndorf GmbH

Limited liability company

Closed

Energent Cooperative

• Open (100 EUR share to become a member)

• Partly voluntary (there are restrictions related to leaving the cooperative

in the first 5 years)

Brixton Energy Solar 1,2,3

Cooperative Open to citizens in the vicinity of the project

Samsø Vindenergi

Coöperatie Open for Danish citizens that live on Samso

Samsø Havvind

Limited liability company

Not open for external parties

Ballen-Brundby Cooperative Open for Danish citizens that live on Samso and are also customers

(Green Energy Cooperative) Zelena energetska zadruga za usluge

Cooperative Open for energy cooperatives in Croatia

Solar.Top Dorfwerfen

None (contract-based)

Open to natural persons living in multi-level apartments

3.1.2. Ownership structure and distribution of voting rights

The cases indicated in blue in the below table concern ownership structures that are potentially out

of scope of EU regulation for REC and CEC.

Table 29: Ownership structures Energy Communities

Name Ownership structure

Distribution voting rights

Actors in control

Amsterdam-Zuid (Schoonschip)

Collective private property

Information not available

Citizens in proximity of the project

Freiamt Windmühlen GmbH


1 share, 1 vote Private companies whose shareholders are natural persons who live in proximity of the project

http://www.middelgrunden.dk/



https://www.somenergia.coop/



https://www.firmenabc.at/ep-zurndorf-gmbh_MMIv


https://energent.be/

https://brixtonenergy.co.uk/


http://www.samsovind.dk/


https://www.energy-supply.dk/article/view/631499/dansk_havmollepark_solgt_til_wind_estate

https://bbf-veo.dk/

https://www.zez.coop/





https://www.salzburg-ag.at/strom/privat/photovoltaik/solar-top.html



Name Ownership structure

Distribution voting rights

Actors in control

& Co. Beteiligungs KG

Thermo Bello Collective private property

1 share, 1 vote Citizens in proximity of the project

EcoPower Collective private property

1 member, 1 vote Citizens in Flanders

Amelander Energie Coöperatie U.A.


1 member, 1 vote Citizens with a socio-economic connection to Ameland

Middelgrundens Vindmøllelaug I/S


1 member, 1 vote Citizens, housing-associations and companies

EWS Schönau Collective private property

1 member, 1 vote Citizens

Som Energia Collective private property


Retenergie (recently merged with supply company: Nostra)



Berlin Energie Individual public property

1 share, 1 vote Municipality of Berlin

Energieprojekt Zurndorf GmbH

Individual public property

1 share, 1 vote Municipality of Burgenland (holds 98% of the shares)

Energent Collective private property

1 member, 1 vote Information not available

Bro Dyfi Community Renewables


1 member, 1 vote Information not available

Brixton Energy Solar 1,2,3


1 member, 1 vote Citizens in proximity of the project

Paludan Flak Coop Collective private property


Samsø Havvind Individual private property

1 share, 1 vote One company (Wind Estate A/S)

Samsø Vindenergi Collective private property

1 member, 1 vote Citizens that live on Samso

Ballen-Brundby Collective private property

1 member, 1 vote Citizens that live on Samso and are also customers

Green Energy Cooperative (Zelena energetska zadruga za usluge)


1 member, 1 vote Energy cooperatives

Solar.Top Dorfwerfen

Individual private property

1 share, 1 vote One company (Salzburg AG)


3.1.3. Related energy vectors

A distinction between CEC and REC are the possible energy vectors involved. The table below shows

all the technologies involved per organization and highlights the initiatives that are involved in activities

that potentially conflict with EU regulation in blue.

Table 30: Related energy vectors Energy Communities

Name Activities Technology Source

Amsterdam-Zuid (Schoonschip)

Electricity production Rooftop PV Solar


Heat and electricity production

5 Wind turbines, 240 PVs on roofs of houses, 2 small hydropower plants, 2 biogas plants, thermal solar collectors, several wood chips and wood pellet heating systems

Wind, solar, hydrogen, biogas and pellets

Thermo Bello Heat production Water cooler Water

EcoPower

Electricity and heat production and supply

Energy saving and efficiency-services

Rooftop PVs, PV parks, wind parks, pellet and briquette factory

Wind, zon en waterstof, pellets, briquettes


Electricity production and aggregation

PVs on roofs of industrial buildings, PV solar park (in joint ownership with the municipality of Ameland and energy company Eneco)

Solar


Electricity production 20 wind turbines (for 50% in property of the company)

Wind

EWS Schönau

Electricity and heat production, distribution and supply

Energy saving and efficiency-services

Electro-mobility services

PV solar parks and PVs on roofs, cogeneration installations, biomass installations, wind turbines, 8 heat networks, EV charging station.

Solar, wind, wood, natural gas


Electricity production and supply.

Energy-efficiency services.

Rooftop PVs, 1 wind turbine, 1 hydroelectric power station

Solar, wind, hydrogen

Energieprojekt Zurndorf GmbH (EPZ) (sold to BEWAG in 1997)

Electricity production Wind park Wind

Energent Electricity production, renovation and insulation services,

Rooftop PVs of public and private entities, batteries, electrical vehicles, smart meters

Solar


electro-mobility services and storage


Electricity production 2 wind turbines Wind

Brixton Energy Electricity and heat production and storage

Rooftop PVs, combined heat and power installation, LED street lighting, anaerobic fermentation processors that convert food waste into heat and gas

Solar, food waste

Brixton Energy Solar 1

Electricity production PVs on rooftops of social housing Solar


Electricity production PVs on rooftops of Styles Gardens, five residential blocks in Loughborough Estate (in property of the municipality)

Solar


Electricity production PVs op on rooftop of Roupell Park Estate Solar

Paludan Flak Coop

Electricity production 1 off-shore wind turbine Wind

Samsø Energy Company ApS

Electricity production 5 off-shore wind turbines Wind

Samsø Vindenergi


Samsø Havvind A/S


Ballen-Brundby Heat production 1 biomass-installation Straws


Provide support to other energy cooperatives in Croatia

Solar.Top Dorfwerfen (Salzburg AG)

Electricity production PVs on rooftops multi-level apartment buildings

Solar


3.1.4. Purpose

The table below shows the main purposes of a series of energy communities. Those initiatives whose primary purpose is profit making and thus in conflict with EU regulation are indicated in blue in the table below.

Table 31: Primary motivations Energy Communities

Name Purpose

Amsterdam-Zuid • Cost savings

• Lower energy bill

• Protection of the environment and climate


• Profit-making


Thermo Bello • Cost savings and lower energy bill

• Energy autonomy


EcoPower • The collection of financial means for alternative, sustainable and renewable energy

production

• Developing a decentralized and democratic energy system

• Promoting a cooperative economy


• Lower energy bill

• Energy autonomy

• The sustainable development of Ameland

EWS Schönau • Abolish nuclear energy

• Provide affordable energy

• Reduce ecological footprint


• Fair and transparent prices

• Reduction of the use of fossil fuels

Berlin Energie • Facilitate a transition to renewable energy

• Reduce energy consumption

• Tackle social issues such as energy poverty

Machynlleh • Generation of renewable energy

• Emphasis on regional development and energy goals


• Generate renewable energy as part of the transition

• Give co-decision making power to citizens

• Tackle social issues

Renewable Energy Investment Club

• Generate renewable energy as part of the transition

• Give co-decision making power to citizens

• Tackle social issues

Energy Conservation Fund

• Ownership of the public network to maximize local benefits

• Providing a vehicle for urban energy transition

• Addressing social issues in urban context


Brixton Energy • Enhance energy autonomy, climate resilience and security of supply

• Reduce electricity bill

• Reduce CO2 emissions

Som Energia • Promote an efficient renewable energy model for citizens

• Growth of social economy

• Break energy oligopoly


• To assist citizens in the development, investment and use of renewable energy

• Focus on crowd-funding


• Profit-making

• Expansion of renewable energy to mitigate global warming

3.1.5. Classification in accordance with EU regulation

The following cases may be classified as REC or CEC in light of the above-provided information. Those initiatives that do not fall under EU regulation are highlighted in blue.

Table 32: Classification Energy Communities in accordance with EU regulation

Name Country Organizational model REC CEC Other

Amsterdam-Zuid NL Cooperative REC CEC


DE Limited liability company REC CEC

Thermo Bello NL Limited liability company REC

EcoPower BE Cooperative CEC


NL Cooperative REC CEC

ElektrizitätsWerke Schönau (EWS)

DE Cooperative CEC

Retenergie IT Cooperative REC CEC

Berlin energie DE State-owned company Other

Energieprojekt Zurndorf GmbH (EPZ) (sold to BEWAG in 1997)

AU Public limited liability company

Other

Energent BE Cooperative REC CEC


UK (Wales)

Cooperative REC CEC


Brixton Energy Solar 1 UK (England)

Cooperative REC

Brixton Energy Solar 2 UK (England)

Cooperative REC


UK (Engeland)

Cooperative REC


DK Partnership CEC

Ballen-Brundby DK, Samsø

Cooperative REC

Samsø Vindenergi DK, Samsø

Cooperative REC CEC

Samsø Havvind A/S DK, Samsø

Public limited liablity company

Other

Paludan Flak Coop DK, Samsø

Cooperative REC CEC


HR Cooperative Other

Som Energia ES Cooperative REC CEC


AU None (contract-based) Other

The overview of cases in the above section provides insight into the practical implementation of the

abstract governance criteria of the legal concepts of CEC and REC, as introduced in EMD and RED

II. Several conclusions can be drawn from this analysis:

• in practice participation in energy communities is not open to all entities due to the requirement

to purchase a certain amount of shares in order to become a member (which is of particular

interest for vulnerable households). Nor is an energy community completely voluntary, as

many initiatives will have clauses that limit the possibility to leave the energy community in the

first months or years;

• energy communities may supply both heat and electricity to its customers, either of which

might be fossil fuel based. Due to the divide between a CEC in the electricity sector and a

REC in the renewable energy sector, long-standing examples of community energy (such as

EWS Schönau eG, which is also involved in natural gas distribution) fall outside the scope of

the RED II, but not necessarily the EMD, as CEC are allowed to engage in additional activities

outside the CEP focus.

• the cooperative structure appears to be a very common and fitting legal organizational form

for energy communities in the sense of the CEP;

• the breakdown into CECs on the one hand and RECs on the other captures only some types

of energy communities, but also excludes others, such as energy community clusters, energy

community islands, and municipal utility companies.


3.2. Detailed case analysis

The following section provides a detailed analysis of some case-examples of energy communities in

Belgium (Flanders), the Netherlands and Germany. Each of these initiatives are involved in a peculiar

set of activities, ranging from more traditional business models such as production and/or supply in

the case of Amelander Energie Coöperatie and Ecopower, to more unconventional or innovative ones,

such as local distribution, electro-mobility services and/or storage in the case of EWS Schönau and

Schoonschip.

The main purpose of this section is to show how an energy community might look like, illustrate the

variety of activities in which they can be engaged, and identify the key actions drivers and institutional

barriers.

Each case shall be presented on the basis of the following dimensions: background, governance

structure, activities, benefits, institutional barriers, key action drivers and relation to the CEP. The

information was collected through a review of the statutes, the websites of the energy communities,

as well as interviews with representatives of the Broad of Directors.

3.2.1. Amelander Energie Coöperatie U.A. (electricity production)

Amelander Energie Coöperatie U.A. Ameland, NL

Background

Amelander Energie Coöperatie (AEC) was established in February 2009 by a group of dedicated ‘Amelanders’. Today, the cooperative owns 1/3 of the largest solar park in the Netherlands. 23,000 solar panels that are connected to the island’s electricity grid and produce enough energy to cover the needs of 1.500 households per year (approximately 5.6 million kWh / 20% of the island’s total electricity demand). In the near future, AEC is looking to also invest in electric car-sharing.

Governance structure

Organizational model

• Cooperative

Participation

• Open to those with a social / economic bond with Ameland. Voluntary, subject to a notice period of 2 months.

Decision-making bodies

• Board of Directors: allocated powers, simple majority with 50% attendance quorum.

• Supervisory Board: supervision and appointment of Executive Board.

• General Meeting of Members: powers set out in the articles of association or per convocation.

Effective control

• ‘1 member, 1 vote’ principle, simple majority unless the articles of association provide otherwise.

• The majority of the members are permanent residents of the island.

• Direct control over the annual statement and profit distribution through the General Meeting.

• Indirect control via the Supervisory Board and the Executive Board.

• Limited indirect control because the members of the Board of Directors can resign no later than the year following the seventieth anniversary of the cooperative. The Board currently consists of five people who were responsible for setting up the cooperative. However, they were never democratically elected by the members themselves.

Purpose

• Delivering sustainable electricity and CO2 compensated gas to its members.


• Contribute to the sustainable development of the island of Ameland.

Activities

Electricity production

Benefits

Environmental

Supply of Ameland residents from locally generated renewable energy. 4,100,475.41 kg CO2 emissions have already been saved.

Institutional barriers

Disproportionate supply license requirements

• The license for electricity supply is linked to various technical and financial conditions (public service obligations, balancing services and security of supply).

• The scope to which such obligations apply is national, i.e. the supplier must be able to fulfill obligations towards all small businesses and households in the Netherlands.103

• The financial and technical obligations that are linked to the supply license are related to this scope, which means that small organizations such as AEC are unable to obtain such a license.

• RED II and EMD formulate the right to proportionally fair and non-discriminatory procedures, including licensing procedures.

Key Action Drivers

• Government grants: Grants were obtained from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the province of Friesland, Leader and the municipality of Ameland.

• The right partners: Eneco’s know-how and the cooperation of the city of Ameland have considerably accelerated the construction of the solar park.

• A replicable model example: AEC has fully adopted the business model of the energy cooperative "Sustainable Energy Cooperative Schiermonnikoog U.A.” on the nearby island of Schiermonnikoog.

• Postcode roos scheme: with this scheme, members of a cooperative receive an energy tax discount on his or her energy bill for locally and sustainably generated electricity.

Relation to CEP

Concept

AEC can be qualified as a CEC and a REC.

Barriers

Potentially addressed: RED II and EMD formulate the right to proportionally fair and non-discriminatory procedures, including licensing procedure in article 22.4 (d) RED II and article 16.1 (e) EMD.

103 Note that art. 95a does provide several exemptions to the supply license requirements, of which the most notable are for customer-

owned production facility that self-supplies and -consumes, a cross-border supplier with max. 500 Dutch customers at the border, individual self-consumption of a legal entity.


3.2.2. Ecopower CVBA (energy production, supply and energy saving services)

Ecopower CVBA (BE)

Background

Ecopower CVBA originated in 1982. Today, it is the most successful energy cooperative in Belgium, and it acts as a producer and supplier of green electricity. The capital raised by the cooperatives is used to finance projects, whether or not in collaboration with other cooperatives.


Legal organizational model

• Cooperative

Participation

• Open to all natural and legal persons, regardless of geographical location, is obtained by purchasing a share worth EUR 250.

• Semi-Voluntary (6 months before every 6-year period ends, the members are given the opportunity to step out. The Board of Directors may allow exceptions, but may also refuse if this endangers the stability of the cooperative)


• Board of directors: the board of directors is composed of at least three members and is appointed by the general assembly. The board of directors elects a chairman and a vice-chairman from among its members. The board of directors only validly decides on agenda items that are agreed in advance and for which at least half of its members are present. The decisions are taken by a majority of those present. The board of directors is authorized for all acts of management and disposal in all social matters, except for those acts for which only the general assembly is authorized by law or the articles of association.

• Supervisory directors / controlling members of the co-operative: the control over the company is exercised by one or more controlling members or by a statutory auditor. They are appointed by the general assembly.

• General assembly: the general assembly consists of all members. They meet at least once a year. The general assembly is valid regardless of the number of people present or represented. Decisions are taken by a simple majority of the valid votes cast.

Effective control

• Natural or legal persons (more than 55.000 citizens now, only few legal persons)Property rights in proportion to the number of shares that one buys.

• ‘1 member, 1 vote’ principle.

Purpose

• Collecting financial resources for alternative, sustainable and renewable energy production

• Developing a decentralized and democratic energy system

• Promotion of a cooperative economy

Activities

Electricity generation from wind, sun and water in Belgium; and supply in Flanders. In addition, energy efficiency and saving services are provided (e.g. EnergieID). Production of wood pellets and brickets from locally sourced pine wood and supply in Belgium and the Netherlands

Benefits

Environment

• Avoiding an emission of CO2.

Economic

• Green electricity supply at cost (members)

Institutional Barriers

"Unfair" competition about building rights

• to superficies = legal agreement concerning permission to build a structure on someone else’s property for a mutually determined but potentially unlimited point in time.


• Normally an annual dividend paid (between 0 – 6%)

• 44 employees

• To date, Ecopower only has 1 rate (no day / night / pure night) and does not have a fixed cost. Moreover, they do not take any profit on the electricity supply: that is a service to the members. This makes us cheap for people with a single counter (still most connections), people with solar panels (reversing counter) and people who consume little. On the other hand, for households that have a high consumption profile, the rate will be proportionately higher than the competition

• Potentially interesting land for wind turbines is being contracted at generous fees by large companies

• Competitive advantage for large players

An unfavorable calculation of the profitable peak for PV

• The value of the green energy certificates is calculated on this basis

• The current calculation method for PV states that an economic advantage is already obtained due to local self-consumption, so that the value of the green energy certificates is lower

• This undermines the economic profitability of projects where PVs are placed on roofs of schools or military barracks, for example, and the electricity generated is supplied to a nearby village.

• It is difficult to build a business case for PV projects and results that suitable roofs are not used to the maximum.

Key action drivers

• Initial investment subsidy: subsidies were obtained from the former monument care service for the first project; the renovation of a watermill and the renovation of two other water mills (4.5 million Belgian francs).

• A favorable arrangement with Electrabel: in 1995, Ecopower obtained a favorable agreement with Iverlek/Electrabel to sell their electricity to them for 2 Belgian francs per kWh. This agreement enabled Ecopower to reinvest in new production facilities.

• The establishment of the Organization for Sustainable Energy Flanders (ODE-Vlaanderen) : through this organization active lobbying was carried out for support mechanisms. Ecopower and its predecessor played a crucial role in the early years of this organization.

• Green power certificates: the introduction of the green power certificates in 2003 enabled Ecopower to build more production facilities and to start producing more power.

• Supplying energy yourself: becoming an energy supplier in 2003 has led to an expansion in the number of members

• To have an ethical story: the story of Ecopower focuses on energy democracy, social justice and sustainability. By promoting this message so early and consistently, it has been able to differentiate itself from its competition in the energy market.

Relation to CEP

Concept

Ecopower can be classified a CEC. The classification of Ecopower as a REC is more controversial, as it will depend on the interpretation of the concept of ‘proximity’ in RED II. Ecopower has members all across the Flanders, in different municipalities. However, it remains questionable whether the majority is located in proximity of their project facilities. In the end, it will depend on the interpretation of the Flemish government of the aspect of ‘proximity’ whether or not the cooperative can be classified as a REC.

Barriers

• The first barrier is not addressed.

• The second barrier is potentially addressed under art. 22 (7) RED II: the right to a customized support scheme. However, as Ecopower is not a REC, this right is not guaranteed.


3.2.3. EWS Schönau eG (energy production, distribution, supply, electro-mobility services and energy saving services)

Elektrizitätswerke Schönau eG Schönau, DE

Background

Elektrizitätswerke Schönau eG is an energy cooperative founded by a citizen’s movement that calls for an end to electricity generated from nuclear energy following the Chernobyl disaster. Since 1997, the local electricity network has been officially in the hands of the cooperative. The registered office is located in Schönau (Baden-Württemberg), where 5535 people live. The cooperative currently has more than 7872 members.



• EWS eG (a cooperative company since 2009) with four subsidiary companies; all a GmbH (limited liability), active in a variety of activities including distribution, supply and production of energy with different technologies.

• Participation (20%) in various civil initiatives, cooperatives and involved in renewable energy production.

Participation

• Open to natural persons, partnerships and legally private and public persons, but subject to a number of conditions of affinity and the purchase of shares (min. 5 shares or € 500,) and the signing of an unconditional declaration of accession and approved by the Council (discretionary authority to refuse certain applications).

• There is a limit of 10 shares or 1,000 EUR on the amount of shares that can be bought in order to avoid people joining just to make a profit.

• Voluntary, subject to 3-year cancellation period


• The Board (3 members): daily management, simple majority with attendance quorum of 50%.

• The Supervisory Board (7 members): supervision of Council decisions, simple majority with 50% attendance quorum.

• The General Assembly (AV) (all members of cooperation): variety of powers, including the election of the Supervisory Council, yearly approval of the actions of the board of directors and the annual accounts. Decisions are made by simple majority

Effective control

• Mainly natural persons, based on ‘1 member, 1 vote’ principle via the GTC. Legal obligation of physical presence at AV for vote validity.

• Usually only 250 of 7872 members are present at the general meetings. In 2019, there were approximately 350 people present. In practice mainly citizens from outside Schönau and EWS eG employees attend.

Purpose

• “The economic promotion and care of the members through secure and affordable supply of climate-friendly and nuclear energy-free energy and drinking water”104

Activities

Electricity production (PV, Wind, WKK, Biomass), electricity, heat and gas distribution, electricity and heat supply, bio and natural gas supply, B2B & B2C services, Public utility services, energy saving services, electro-mobility services.

Benefits Institutional barriers

104 https://www.ews-schoenau.de/ews/genossenschaft/satzung/.

https://www.ews-schoenau.de/ews/genossenschaft/satzung/


Economic

• 165 employees 2nd largest employer Schönau.

• Electricity price in 2020 will be 29.2 ct / kWh (+ basic price 9.95 EUR per month). In comparison with an average of 30 c / kWh, the economic benefit for households with regard to electricity is thus small.

• Stimulate the local economy. Eg if EWS Schönau eG needs a cable from the distribution network to be repaired, they will hire a community company to do this.

• EWS Schönau eG provides the largest tax contribution in the city of Schönau

• Dividends are consistently issued by EWS Schönau, ranging from 2% to 3.5% of the profit. Although the dividend could be higher, the proposal to increase the amount is consistently rejected by the majority of the members. They want capital to be reinvested in new production facilities and technologies.

Environmental

• Schönau is often called the capital of the sun. The total nominal capacity of the PV installations present that were installed by EWS eG is approximately 7.8 MWp.

Social

• Investment in community facilities, including local football clubs, swimming pools, etc.

• When interviewing the members of EWS Schönau, it became clear that many were attracted by a sense of community based on a common interest in contributing to the energy transition. Every year they could meet again, exchange ideas and discuss the energy transition.

Limited access to the transmission network for RES

• The German legislature has put a 45% stop (1550 MW) on access to the transmission network up to and including 2025 in order to prevent congestion. Network extension has not been forthcoming.

→ Further expansion of EWS eG production facilities and production impeded.

Grant mechanism

• In Germany, companies have to go to an auction to compete for subsidies. This is a market-based approach that involves the person who needs the least amount of subsidies. Larger energy companies that have more financial resources take part in these auctions and have the capacity to develop a project for the lowest amount of subsidies.

• Difficulty competing for grants with larger enterprises

Broad conceptualization of "citizens’ energy company"

• The German law on renewable energy sources provides for citizens’ energy companies a reduction in the deposit that must be paid to participate in the auction for grants. However, in practice the concept is ‘hijacked’ by larger energy companies through innovative structures, resulting in proxy-communities.

→ Difficulty competing for grants

Difficulties winning concession over distribution grid

• To obtain the concession to operate a distribution network, the applicant must meet financial and technical criteria. As the previous operator already has a financial plan and a professional team, it will be re-elected in the majority of cases.

→ Difficulties in taking over distribution grid

Fixed rates for collective self-consumption within the community

• The net tariffs for all distribution system operators are determined on the basis of the assumption that everyone must contribute equally to the maintenance, development and operational costs for the distribution system. This requires EWS Schönau eG to charge a higher price for energy supplied by prosumers within the community to be able to reward the latter. Moreover, it does not take into account the flexibility services that prosumers can provide to the local distribution network.

→ Difficult to build a business case

Double tariffing for storage

• Insofar as the energy storage is connected to the distribution network, the operator must pay both an injection rate and a purchase rate for energy storage operations.

→ Difficult to build a business case

Key Action Drivers

• Knowledge of the local area: Schönau residents are initiators.

• Local heroes: Ursula Sladek, primary school teacher and her husband Michael Sladek, independent city councilor, were the key figures in the founding of EWS Schönau eG.

• Strong community cohesion: Schönau is a small village in the middle of the Black Forest. Everyone knows everyone in the village. This has contributed considerably to the sense of community and thus the possibility of mobilizing a large proportion of the villagers to participate in the community initiative.

• Employees with exceptional expertise: Martin Halm is managing director in EWS Netze GmbH: the company in charge of the distribution networks. He was contacted by Michael Sladek to operate the local distribution network due to his relevant experience; he worked for several years in the electricity sector at the Stadtwerke in Bruchsal


(a water and energy distribution company) – and decided to join EWS Schönau at the start-up phase to help operate and manage the local distribution grid.

• A positive approach: The associated association "Parents for a nuclear-free future" organized among other things. an energy saving competition, trips to solar parks, wind farms and gave tips and advice on energy saving.

• Citizen-organized referenda: the referral of the operating license to the original local distribution network company was cancelled twice by local referenda.105

• A fundraising campaign: Part of the financial resources for taking over the local distribution network (3.5 million DM - 1.77 million euros) was borrowed from the GSL Gemeinschaftsbank - a bank that operates according to certain ecological and social principles. The rest via crowdfunding.106

• Media attention & fund-raising campaign: In their struggle to take over the distribution network and to take on a large energy company like KWR, EWS Schönau received a lot of media attention. This attracted all kinds of environmental associations and celebrities to join their goal and finally enabled them to collect the remaining part of the funds needed to take over the distribution network through a crowdfunding campaign with the slogan "Ich bin ein Störfall” (I am an accident).107

• A favorable policy framework:

• In the aftermath of the liberalization of the German electricity market, each German citizen got the chance to choose their energy supplier. This provided EWS Schönau the opportunity to expand their customer base considerably and create a source of revenue. As we speak, EWS Schönau is supplying energy to all over Germany;

• The announcement by the German federal state to phase out nuclear energy by 2025 has contributed to the success of EWS Schönau. This pledge was renewed and updated more recently by Angela Merkel to 2020;

• Finally, there is the adoption of the EEG in 2000 which introduced a subsidy scheme based on feed-in-tariffs for renewable production facilities and guaranteed renewable energy producers a source of income. Today, this subsidy scheme has been replaced by an auction based premium-pricing scheme for installations >100 kW. Whilst old asset still enjoy feed-in-tariffs, this will come to an end in 2021.

Relation to CEP

Concept

EWS eG can be qualified as a CEC to the extent that such an entity is allowed to also operate on the heating market (not explicitly prohibited and thus assumed to be allowed). It cannot be qualified as a REC because it supplies natural gas.

Barriers

Irrespective of the classification of EWS Schönau, it is of interest to see which of these barriers are addressed by the CEP.

• Network access cap: not addressed

• Unfair competition over auction-based premium prices: potentially not addressed in art. 22 (7) RED II.

• Broad definition citizens’ energy companies: potentially addressed through the introduction of RECs and CECs

• Unfair concession system for distribution: potentially addressed

• Fixed tariffs for collective self-consumption within the community: potentially addressed in art. 15 (1a) (e) EMD

• Double grid tariffs for storage: addressed in art. 15 (1c) (b) EMD

105 Cappelletti, F., Vallar, J-P, Wyssling, J., ‘The Energy Transition Chronicles’, Energy Cities, January 2016.

106 Cappelletti, F., Vallar, J-P, Wyssling, J., ‘The Energy Transition Chronicles’, Energy Cities, January 2016. 107 Cappelletti, F., Vallar, J-P, Wyssling, J., ‘The Energy Transition Chronicles’, Energy Cities, January 2016.


3.2.4. Schoonschip Energie Coöperatie (electricity production, storage and sharing through a local micro-grid)

Schoonschip Coöperatie

Amsterdam, NL

Background

In 2008, a small group of citizens decided to investigate the possibilities

to set up a community, which could take care, as much as possible, of

their own needs regarding energy, water and food. The group

expanded to a total of 46 households, which decided to jointly set up a

new floating neighborhood of 46 houseboats, autonomously producing

their own energy, and, as much as possible, cover their own water and

food needs. The members of this ‘Schoonschip community’, as they

call themselves, now produce, store and share their self-produced

renewable electricity, operate their own grid and participate in the

different electricity markets



Schoonschip is a cooperative of 46 members. Each member operates its own private solar electricity system. Each

houseboat has a battery, which is owned and operated by the community. The community also operates the local grid

and the community energy management system, which includes operation of the batteries, demand response, and

electricity exchange with the distribution system

Participation (who and how)

Schoonschip is a closed local cooperative, consisting of only citizen households


• The Board: members from the cooperative, appointed by the cooperative (by voting)

• The Supervisory Board: members proposed by the board, appointed by the cooperative (by voting)

• The General Assembly (AV): all members of the cooperative

Effective control (who and how)

The board, controlled by the General Assembly

Purpose

An independent community, focussing on ‘preservation of the world’

Demonstration of the feasibility of to dramatically reducing the footprint of a household

Demonstration that a joint effort results in a much higher reduction in ecological footprint

Activities: production, storage, sharing of self-produced renewable electricity.

Benefits

Economic :

Possible break even

Future proof

High value of dwelling

Social

Strong collaboration

Joint responsibility for safety and

maintenance

Mutual care and support

Institutional barriers

Barrier 1:

Lack of transparency in legislation, particularly regarding energy taxes, real estate legislation.

Barrier 2 :

Problems with City administration particularly regarding land use and issuing and allocation of the parking spaces for the cooperative’s shared transport means (electric vehicles)

Key Action Drivers

Key Action Driver 1: Example of the fully autarkic ship ‘Gewoonboot’

Key Action Driver 2: Financial support from City and Province for feasibility studies

Key Action Driver 3: ‘Experiments Electricity Law - Regime


Relation to CEP

Concept:

Schoonschip fully qualifies as both a REC and a CEC, in their most developed form, including grid ownership and

operation

Barriers

As for the national framework: Tax issues are not covered under the ‘Experiments Electricity Law’ – regime, whereas these are these form the main problem for the feasibility of renewable electricity based local energy communities


List of references

Legal and policy documents

• Décret modifiant les décrets des 12 avril 2001 relatif à l’organisation du marché régional de l’électricité, du 19 décembre 2002 relatif à l’organisation du marché régional du gaz et du 19 janvier 2017 relatif à la méthodologie tarifaire applicable aux gestionnaires de réseau de distribution de gaz et d’électricité en vue de favoriser le développement des communautés d’énergie renouvelable;

• Loi n° 2019-1147 du 8 novembre 2019 relative à l'énergie et au climat;

• Renewable Energy Sources (EEG 2017);

• Ontwerpbesluit houdende nadere regels voor het bij wege van experiment afwijken van de Elektriciteitswet 1998 of de Gaswet;

• Wet van 2 juli 1998, houdende regels met betrekking tot de productie, het transport en de levering van elektriciteit (Elektriciteitswet 1998);

• Besluit van 28 februari 2015, houdende het bij wege van experiment afwijken van de Elektriciteitswet 1998 voor decentrale opwekking van duurzame elektriciteit (Besluit experimenten decentrale duurzame elektriciteitsopwekking);

• Decree-Law No. 162/2019 on October 25th that amends Decree-Law No. 153/2014 of 20 October on Decentralized Electricity Generation;

• Regulation on self-supply with electricity from renewable energy sources. The official gazette of Republic of Slovenia, No. 17/2019, 22.3.2019;

• Projet de loi n°7266/06 modifiant la loi modifiée du 1er août 2007 relative à l’organisation du marché de l’électricité ;

• Department of Communications, ‘Energy and Natural Resources, ‘Ireland’s Transition to a Low Carbon Energy Future 2015-2030’, 2015;

• Government of Ireland, ‘Renewable Electricity Support Scheme (RESS). High level design’, June 2018;

• Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, ‘Sustainable Energy Communities Programme’, 2018;

• The law 4513/2018 (OJ A 9/23.01.2018) on Energy Communities and other provisions, whose aim is to promote social economy, solidarity and innovation in energy, energy sustainability, and to increase energy efficiency in final consumption on local and regional level and use of RES and High Efficiency Cogeneration of Heat and Power (HECHP).

Articles

• Bauwens, T., Gotchev, B. and Holstenkamp, L., ‘What drives the development of community energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives’, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 13, March 2016, pp. 136-147;

• Heldeweg, M., ‘Normative alignment, Institutional Resilience and Shifts in Legal Governance of the Energy Transition’, Sustainability, 2017, pp. 28-30;


• Lammers, I., Diestelmeier, L. ‘Experimenting with Law and Governance for Decentralized Electricity Systems: Adjusting Regulation to Reality?’, Sustainability 2017, 9, 212.

Reports

• Tounquet, F., De Vos, L., Abada, I., Kielichowska, I. and Lessmann, C., ‘Energy Communities in the European Union’, 2019;

• Frieden, D., Tuerk A., Roberts J., d’Herbemont S., Gubina A., ‘Collective self-consumption and energy communities: Overview of emerging regulatory approach in Europe’, H2020 project COMPILE, June 2019;

• Cappelletti, F., Vallar, J-P, Wyssling, J., ‘The Energy Transition Chronicles’, Energy Cities, January 2016;

• Gordon Walker, ‘What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use?’, Elsevier, 2008.

Books

Heinrich Bell Foundation Thessaloniki Office, Building Energy Communities. Energy in the hands of citizens, September 2019.

Energy Communities

• http://schoonschipamsterdam.org/;

• https://www.oekostrom-freiburg.de/freiamt;

• http://www.thermobello.nl/;

• https://www.ecopower.be/;

• https://www.amelandenergie.nl/;

• http://www.middelgrunden.dk/;

• https://www.ews-schoenau.de/;

• https://www.somenergia.coop/;

• https://www.energy-democracy.net/?p=340;

• https://www.berlinenergie.de/;

• https://www.firmenabc.at/ep-zurndorf-gmbh_MMIv;

• https://energent.be/;

• https://brixtonenergy.co.uk/;

• http://www.samsovind.dk/;

• https://www.energy-

supply.dk/article/view/631499/dansk_havmollepark_solgt_til_wind_estate;



http://www.thermobello.nl/

https://www.ecopower.be/




https://www.somenergia.coop/




https://energent.be/






• https://bbf-veo.dk/;

• https://www.zez.coop/;

• https://www.salzburg-ag.at/strom/privat/photovoltaik/solar-top.html;

• https://www.ventsdusud.be/;

• https://www.partago.be/;

• https://www.courantdair.be/wp/;

• http://www.solardachboerse.de/marktplatz/;

• http://seacourse.dk/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=District+Heating+Plant%2C+Ballen-Brundby;

• https://comunitasolare.eu/;

• https://www.ventsdusud.be/;

• https://www.partago.be/;

• https://www.altroconsumo.it/gruppoacquisto/abbassalabolletta/chiuso

• https://www.courantdair.be/wp/;

• https://energie-partagee.org/;

• http://sifnosislandcoop.gr/en/;

• https://www.isarwatt.de/;

• https://www.urstrom.de/;

• https://www.isarwatt.de/;

• https://www.urstrom.de/;

• https://www.buzzn.net/;

• https://www.oekostrom-freiburg.de/freiamt;

• https://www.berlinenergie.de/;

• https://grunnegerpower.nl/;

• https://www.cooperatieauto.nl/;

• https://windvogel.nl/;

• https://www.energyportpeelland.nl/;

• https://www.coopernico.org/.

https://bbf-veo.dk/






http://www.solardachboerse.de/marktplatz/

http://seacourse.dk/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=District+Heating+Plant%2C+Ballen-Brundby

https://comunitasolare.eu/



https://www.altroconsumo.it/gruppoacquisto/abbassalabolletta/chiuso


https://energie-partagee.org/

http://sifnosislandcoop.gr/en/





https://www.buzzn.net/



https://grunnegerpower.nl/

https://www.cooperatieauto.nl/

https://windvogel.nl/

https://www.energyportpeelland.nl/

https://www.coopernico.org/


List of figures Figure 1: Overview of the EU countries with legislative developments ............................................ 10 Figure 2: Energy sources of Renewable and Citizen Energy Communities ..................................... 35 Figure 3: Most common legal organizational forms for Energy Communities .................................. 35 Figure 4: Overview of most prominent societal benefits provided by Energy Communities (top 5) .. 41 Figure 5: Relationship between Renewable and Citizen Energy Communities ................................ 46 Figure 6: Overview 3-step Sustainable Energy Community Programme ......................................... 71 Figure 7: Overview support measures Sustainable Energy Community Programme ....................... 72 Figure 8: Grant system Sustainable Energy Authority of Authority .................................................. 72


List of tables

Table 1: Overview conceptual dimensions Citizen and Renewable Energy Communities ............... 34 Table 2: Overview of potential social, economic and environmental benefits of Energy Communities ....................................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 3: Overview rights and responsibilities Citizen and Renewable Energy Communities ........... 41 Table 4: Overview current status of existing or emerging legal frameworks for Energy Communities in the EU ............................................................................................................................................ 48 Table 5: Comparison legal concept in Walloon law to EU regulation ............................................... 52 Table 6: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Walloon law to EU regulation ........... 53 Table 7: Comparison legal concept in French law to EU regulation ................................................. 56 Table 8: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in French law to EU regulation ............. 57 Table 9: Differentiated governance principles non-profit versus for-profit energy cooperatives ....... 60 Table 10: Financial incentives for Energy Communities in Greek law ............................................. 61 Table 11: Support measures for Energy Communities in Greek law ............................................... 62 Table 12: Comparison legal concept in Greek law to EU regulation ................................................ 63 Table 13: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Greek law to EU regulation ............ 65 Table 14: Comparison legal concept in German law to EU regulation ............................................. 68 Table 15: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in German law to EU regulation ......... 69 Table 16: Comparison legal concept in Irish policy to EU regulation ............................................... 74 Table 17: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Irish policy to EU regulation............ 75 Table 18: Comparison legal concept in Luxembourgian draft law to EU regulation ......................... 78 Table 19: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Luxembourgian draft law to EU regulation ........................................................................................................................................ 80 Table 20: Comparison legal concept in Dutch regulation to EU regulation ...................................... 85 Table 21: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Dutch regulation to EU regulation .. 86 Table 22: Comparison legal concept in Portuguese law to EU regulation........................................ 92 Table 23: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Portuguese law to EU regulation .... 93 Table 24: Comparison legal concept in Slovenian By-Law to EU regulation .................................... 97 Table 25: Comparison rights, privileges and responsibilities in Slovenian By-Law to EU regulation 98 Table 26: Overview of emerging and existing legal concepts for Energy Communities in the context of the Clean Energy Package ....................................................................................................... 101 Table 27: Overview of emerging and existing rights, privileges and responsibilities for Energy Communities in the context of the Clean Energy Package ............................................................ 105 Table 28: Participation structures Energy Communities ................................................................ 109 Table 29: Ownership structures Energy Communities ................................................................... 110 Table 30: Related energy vectors Energy Communities ................................................................ 112 Table 31: Primary motivations Energy Communities ..................................................................... 114 Table 32: Classification Energy Communities in accordance with EU regulation ........................... 115

Report developed with the support of DOWEL Management within the INTENSYS4EU Coordination and Support Action

(H2020 Grant Agreement n° 731220)

More information at http://www.h2020-bridge.eu/

http://www.h2020-bridge.eu/